Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
speedingpullet
ParticipantI watched her show for the first time yesterday, and was heartened to hear her giving sound and conservative financial advice.
I only wish Gerri Willis on CNN could be so ‘tough love’.I particularly liked the “Can You Afford It?” section, especially when a 14-yr-old fan-boy ( trapped in the body of a 45-yr-old husband) called in to find out if he could ‘afford’ a life-size replica of Robbie the Robot, for a mere $25K.
This was a guy with only $100K in his 401(K) and $50K of savings…Suze actually rolled her eyes when he explained that he’d pay a downpayment and ‘finance’ the rest.
And, of course, asked the $64,000 question that pretty much every woman watching was asking themselves….”So, what does your WIFE think of this?…” embarrassed silence ensues… 😉Personally, I find her a bit too OTT to watch for too long, but its still good to know that she pretty much rejects outright anyone who has debt of any kind – be it CC, Student loans, ARMS etc.. and tells them to get rid of ALL DEBT before going after big-ticket items.
And…some of the stuff people convince themselves they can afford to buy!
A guy was seriously thinking of going halves with sister and BiL on a Lakehouse for $44K (his share)- with a 10/0/80 mortgage, student loan, car lease payment and only $7K in savings. Sheesh…
ParticipantI watched her show for the first time yesterday, and was heartened to hear her giving sound and conservative financial advice.
I only wish Gerri Willis on CNN could be so ‘tough love’.I particularly liked the “Can You Afford It?” section, especially when a 14-yr-old fan-boy ( trapped in the body of a 45-yr-old husband) called in to find out if he could ‘afford’ a life-size replica of Robbie the Robot, for a mere $25K.
This was a guy with only $100K in his 401(K) and $50K of savings…Suze actually rolled her eyes when he explained that he’d pay a downpayment and ‘finance’ the rest.
And, of course, asked the $64,000 question that pretty much every woman watching was asking themselves….”So, what does your WIFE think of this?…” embarrassed silence ensues… 😉Personally, I find her a bit too OTT to watch for too long, but its still good to know that she pretty much rejects outright anyone who has debt of any kind – be it CC, Student loans, ARMS etc.. and tells them to get rid of ALL DEBT before going after big-ticket items.
And…some of the stuff people convince themselves they can afford to buy!
A guy was seriously thinking of going halves with sister and BiL on a Lakehouse for $44K (his share)- with a 10/0/80 mortgage, student loan, car lease payment and only $7K in savings. Sheesh…
ParticipantI watched her show for the first time yesterday, and was heartened to hear her giving sound and conservative financial advice.
I only wish Gerri Willis on CNN could be so ‘tough love’.I particularly liked the “Can You Afford It?” section, especially when a 14-yr-old fan-boy ( trapped in the body of a 45-yr-old husband) called in to find out if he could ‘afford’ a life-size replica of Robbie the Robot, for a mere $25K.
This was a guy with only $100K in his 401(K) and $50K of savings…Suze actually rolled her eyes when he explained that he’d pay a downpayment and ‘finance’ the rest.
And, of course, asked the $64,000 question that pretty much every woman watching was asking themselves….”So, what does your WIFE think of this?…” embarrassed silence ensues… 😉Personally, I find her a bit too OTT to watch for too long, but its still good to know that she pretty much rejects outright anyone who has debt of any kind – be it CC, Student loans, ARMS etc.. and tells them to get rid of ALL DEBT before going after big-ticket items.
And…some of the stuff people convince themselves they can afford to buy!
A guy was seriously thinking of going halves with sister and BiL on a Lakehouse for $44K (his share)- with a 10/0/80 mortgage, student loan, car lease payment and only $7K in savings. Sheesh…
ParticipantTo be honest, I think its a case of serendipidy and bungling simultaneously.
Serendipity, because Musharraf clearly wasn’t going to let her run for election, nor any other party for that matter – his only wish is to remain in power. His ‘election’ of a toady to head the Army, and his crackdown on the Pakistani legal system, plus all the hot air about ‘allowing’ a free and fair election in the new year is clearly a byzantine move on his part to hold onto power for as long as possible.
Bungling, because his govt could have gotten away scott-free if they’d only kept thier mouth shut about the method of her death. My bet is that the govt welcomed the news that she’d been shot, and wanted to make the story go away as soon as possible – hence the totally ludicrous insistance that she hit her head on the sunroof. That way, no one is to blame, and everything is hunky-dory.
Unfortunately, for him, an assassination of a very popular candidate doesn’t go away that easily, so, rather than calming the waters by producing a ‘plausible’ explanation, they’ve shot themselves in the foot.
New footage of the horrible incident has just been aired on CNN – in it you can clearly see a man in sunglasses with a gun shoot at her. Milliseconds later, you can see the back of her veil and her hair lift, and she clearly slumps into the body of the van several seconds before the bomb blast. So, obviously, the govt is wrong in its insistence that she died from a skull fracture.
As for the CIA – I doubt it very much. The US was forging ties with the PPP, and had she lived, would have put increasing pressure on Musharraf to concede proper democratic elections. As Allan points out, the CIA has its hands full with the likes of Chavez and Ahmedinijhad,
Bhutto was technically on ‘our’ side.Personally, I do believe she was killed by one of the Al Quaida/Taliban factions – no surprise really as she was anathema to their wish to instate Sharia law in Pashtunistan. A secular woman in charge? No way, Jose.
The Govt security forces clearly weren’t fans either, but I think Musharraf is too canny to be linked, explicitly or implicitly, with her assassination – too much of a hot potato, especially when there are so many others that were willing to do the deed in his place, without links to him or his govt.
However, I also believe that Musharraf is guilty implicitly, by not allowing her the security she constantly asked for. By not treating her as a security risk, he dammned her to death. More fool him, as the whole mess has blown up in his face, and the international community is looking very hard at his regieme now, rather than just allowing him to do what he wants, when he wants.
Any way you look at it, its a total cluster$uck.
ParticipantTo be honest, I think its a case of serendipidy and bungling simultaneously.
Serendipity, because Musharraf clearly wasn’t going to let her run for election, nor any other party for that matter – his only wish is to remain in power. His ‘election’ of a toady to head the Army, and his crackdown on the Pakistani legal system, plus all the hot air about ‘allowing’ a free and fair election in the new year is clearly a byzantine move on his part to hold onto power for as long as possible.
Bungling, because his govt could have gotten away scott-free if they’d only kept thier mouth shut about the method of her death. My bet is that the govt welcomed the news that she’d been shot, and wanted to make the story go away as soon as possible – hence the totally ludicrous insistance that she hit her head on the sunroof. That way, no one is to blame, and everything is hunky-dory.
Unfortunately, for him, an assassination of a very popular candidate doesn’t go away that easily, so, rather than calming the waters by producing a ‘plausible’ explanation, they’ve shot themselves in the foot.
New footage of the horrible incident has just been aired on CNN – in it you can clearly see a man in sunglasses with a gun shoot at her. Milliseconds later, you can see the back of her veil and her hair lift, and she clearly slumps into the body of the van several seconds before the bomb blast. So, obviously, the govt is wrong in its insistence that she died from a skull fracture.
As for the CIA – I doubt it very much. The US was forging ties with the PPP, and had she lived, would have put increasing pressure on Musharraf to concede proper democratic elections. As Allan points out, the CIA has its hands full with the likes of Chavez and Ahmedinijhad,
Bhutto was technically on ‘our’ side.Personally, I do believe she was killed by one of the Al Quaida/Taliban factions – no surprise really as she was anathema to their wish to instate Sharia law in Pashtunistan. A secular woman in charge? No way, Jose.
The Govt security forces clearly weren’t fans either, but I think Musharraf is too canny to be linked, explicitly or implicitly, with her assassination – too much of a hot potato, especially when there are so many others that were willing to do the deed in his place, without links to him or his govt.
However, I also believe that Musharraf is guilty implicitly, by not allowing her the security she constantly asked for. By not treating her as a security risk, he dammned her to death. More fool him, as the whole mess has blown up in his face, and the international community is looking very hard at his regieme now, rather than just allowing him to do what he wants, when he wants.
Any way you look at it, its a total cluster$uck.
ParticipantTo be honest, I think its a case of serendipidy and bungling simultaneously.
Serendipity, because Musharraf clearly wasn’t going to let her run for election, nor any other party for that matter – his only wish is to remain in power. His ‘election’ of a toady to head the Army, and his crackdown on the Pakistani legal system, plus all the hot air about ‘allowing’ a free and fair election in the new year is clearly a byzantine move on his part to hold onto power for as long as possible.
Bungling, because his govt could have gotten away scott-free if they’d only kept thier mouth shut about the method of her death. My bet is that the govt welcomed the news that she’d been shot, and wanted to make the story go away as soon as possible – hence the totally ludicrous insistance that she hit her head on the sunroof. That way, no one is to blame, and everything is hunky-dory.
Unfortunately, for him, an assassination of a very popular candidate doesn’t go away that easily, so, rather than calming the waters by producing a ‘plausible’ explanation, they’ve shot themselves in the foot.
New footage of the horrible incident has just been aired on CNN – in it you can clearly see a man in sunglasses with a gun shoot at her. Milliseconds later, you can see the back of her veil and her hair lift, and she clearly slumps into the body of the van several seconds before the bomb blast. So, obviously, the govt is wrong in its insistence that she died from a skull fracture.
As for the CIA – I doubt it very much. The US was forging ties with the PPP, and had she lived, would have put increasing pressure on Musharraf to concede proper democratic elections. As Allan points out, the CIA has its hands full with the likes of Chavez and Ahmedinijhad,
Bhutto was technically on ‘our’ side.Personally, I do believe she was killed by one of the Al Quaida/Taliban factions – no surprise really as she was anathema to their wish to instate Sharia law in Pashtunistan. A secular woman in charge? No way, Jose.
The Govt security forces clearly weren’t fans either, but I think Musharraf is too canny to be linked, explicitly or implicitly, with her assassination – too much of a hot potato, especially when there are so many others that were willing to do the deed in his place, without links to him or his govt.
However, I also believe that Musharraf is guilty implicitly, by not allowing her the security she constantly asked for. By not treating her as a security risk, he dammned her to death. More fool him, as the whole mess has blown up in his face, and the international community is looking very hard at his regieme now, rather than just allowing him to do what he wants, when he wants.
Any way you look at it, its a total cluster$uck.
ParticipantTo be honest, I think its a case of serendipidy and bungling simultaneously.
Serendipity, because Musharraf clearly wasn’t going to let her run for election, nor any other party for that matter – his only wish is to remain in power. His ‘election’ of a toady to head the Army, and his crackdown on the Pakistani legal system, plus all the hot air about ‘allowing’ a free and fair election in the new year is clearly a byzantine move on his part to hold onto power for as long as possible.
Bungling, because his govt could have gotten away scott-free if they’d only kept thier mouth shut about the method of her death. My bet is that the govt welcomed the news that she’d been shot, and wanted to make the story go away as soon as possible – hence the totally ludicrous insistance that she hit her head on the sunroof. That way, no one is to blame, and everything is hunky-dory.
Unfortunately, for him, an assassination of a very popular candidate doesn’t go away that easily, so, rather than calming the waters by producing a ‘plausible’ explanation, they’ve shot themselves in the foot.
New footage of the horrible incident has just been aired on CNN – in it you can clearly see a man in sunglasses with a gun shoot at her. Milliseconds later, you can see the back of her veil and her hair lift, and she clearly slumps into the body of the van several seconds before the bomb blast. So, obviously, the govt is wrong in its insistence that she died from a skull fracture.
As for the CIA – I doubt it very much. The US was forging ties with the PPP, and had she lived, would have put increasing pressure on Musharraf to concede proper democratic elections. As Allan points out, the CIA has its hands full with the likes of Chavez and Ahmedinijhad,
Bhutto was technically on ‘our’ side.Personally, I do believe she was killed by one of the Al Quaida/Taliban factions – no surprise really as she was anathema to their wish to instate Sharia law in Pashtunistan. A secular woman in charge? No way, Jose.
The Govt security forces clearly weren’t fans either, but I think Musharraf is too canny to be linked, explicitly or implicitly, with her assassination – too much of a hot potato, especially when there are so many others that were willing to do the deed in his place, without links to him or his govt.
However, I also believe that Musharraf is guilty implicitly, by not allowing her the security she constantly asked for. By not treating her as a security risk, he dammned her to death. More fool him, as the whole mess has blown up in his face, and the international community is looking very hard at his regieme now, rather than just allowing him to do what he wants, when he wants.
Any way you look at it, its a total cluster$uck.
ParticipantTo be honest, I think its a case of serendipidy and bungling simultaneously.
Serendipity, because Musharraf clearly wasn’t going to let her run for election, nor any other party for that matter – his only wish is to remain in power. His ‘election’ of a toady to head the Army, and his crackdown on the Pakistani legal system, plus all the hot air about ‘allowing’ a free and fair election in the new year is clearly a byzantine move on his part to hold onto power for as long as possible.
Bungling, because his govt could have gotten away scott-free if they’d only kept thier mouth shut about the method of her death. My bet is that the govt welcomed the news that she’d been shot, and wanted to make the story go away as soon as possible – hence the totally ludicrous insistance that she hit her head on the sunroof. That way, no one is to blame, and everything is hunky-dory.
Unfortunately, for him, an assassination of a very popular candidate doesn’t go away that easily, so, rather than calming the waters by producing a ‘plausible’ explanation, they’ve shot themselves in the foot.
New footage of the horrible incident has just been aired on CNN – in it you can clearly see a man in sunglasses with a gun shoot at her. Milliseconds later, you can see the back of her veil and her hair lift, and she clearly slumps into the body of the van several seconds before the bomb blast. So, obviously, the govt is wrong in its insistence that she died from a skull fracture.
As for the CIA – I doubt it very much. The US was forging ties with the PPP, and had she lived, would have put increasing pressure on Musharraf to concede proper democratic elections. As Allan points out, the CIA has its hands full with the likes of Chavez and Ahmedinijhad,
Bhutto was technically on ‘our’ side.Personally, I do believe she was killed by one of the Al Quaida/Taliban factions – no surprise really as she was anathema to their wish to instate Sharia law in Pashtunistan. A secular woman in charge? No way, Jose.
The Govt security forces clearly weren’t fans either, but I think Musharraf is too canny to be linked, explicitly or implicitly, with her assassination – too much of a hot potato, especially when there are so many others that were willing to do the deed in his place, without links to him or his govt.
However, I also believe that Musharraf is guilty implicitly, by not allowing her the security she constantly asked for. By not treating her as a security risk, he dammned her to death. More fool him, as the whole mess has blown up in his face, and the international community is looking very hard at his regieme now, rather than just allowing him to do what he wants, when he wants.
Any way you look at it, its a total cluster$uck.
ParticipantTake care Piggingtonians.
I’m about 10 miles from the Malibu fire (and the winds going in the other direction), but it sounds like San Diego is getting really crispy.
Be safe, and I wish everyone, their loved ones and property, nothing but the best.
PS: Lake Arrowhead is ablaze – CNN is doing continuous coverage of all the fires. Normally I’d be irritated by thier 24-hour navel-gazing on just one subject, but this time I’m finding myself quite forgiving.
ParticipantTake care Piggingtonians.
I’m about 10 miles from the Malibu fire (and the winds going in the other direction), but it sounds like San Diego is getting really crispy.
Be safe, and I wish everyone, their loved ones and property, nothing but the best.
PS: Lake Arrowhead is ablaze – CNN is doing continuous coverage of all the fires. Normally I’d be irritated by thier 24-hour navel-gazing on just one subject, but this time I’m finding myself quite forgiving.
ParticipantI have friend who lived in downtown loft a while back (rented) and told me that, yes, the loft was very nice, but Downtown L.A is deserted after dark.
Once the Suits have gone home, there’s very little in the way of resturants and other social amenities – the streets are quiet but for the many, many homeless people. Not that I have anything against homless people, but tripping over people sleeping in your doorway when you come home gets a bit tired after a while.
They’ve been trying to ‘gentrify’ downtown for years now, with dissapointing results – despite a lot of lofts/condos being built/converted, the place is still basically a financial district. Like most financial districts worldwide, they’re great during working hours, but turn into ghostowns once the workers go home for the evening.And, lets not forget the amazing amount of traffic going through Downtown every day – if your son needs to get out of the City he’s going to be fighting traffic in every direction. Most Angelinos will gladly bypass the Downtown area if they can, because they know once they near the Staples Centre on the I-10, they’re going to have to deal with the horrendous traffic going both in and out of Downtown at all hours of the day.
Cashman – where is your son going to school? L.A colleges are spread all over – is he going to USC? UCLA? Pepperdine? You might be better served by looking at the local markets nearer his school.
And, I’d echo others in saying that buying ANYTHING in L.A at the moment would be financial suicide – despite what the MSM says. Prices here are very sticky, and L.A is still has some of the most unaffordable prices in the country.
If he’s dead set on living in Downtown, despite all the drawbacks, then please persuade him to rent a loft for a year before putting good money down for a place. You never know, after a year he’ll have gotten bored with the problems, and will want to move somewhere else in the L.A area.
Just my tuppenceworth.
ParticipantI’d second Westside Rentals too – got both of my last places through them.
It sucks that they charge, but there really isn’t anything else that compares to it for rental properties.
BTW – if you know of any other people in the same boat (ie just moved to L.A, need a rental), then pool your money together and share the password.Unfortunately, I don’t know anyone looking at the moment, or I’d pass on an already paid for password.
I’d also second that L.A is big, dirty and expensive – I’d so be outta here if my husband didn’t have a good job in Santa Monica.
If you’re working in SM, and are horrifed by the prices (you’re not the only one), you might consider renting in West L.A – west of Centinela (90025, 90024). Its a tad less expensive than SM proper, and has a lot of apartments/condos/townhouses.
Venice is a double-edged sword: there’s some very nice parts, and some really awful parts, and often these two are on the other side of the road from each other!
Venice is also insanely crowded in summer – but if you don’t mind looky loos walking past your house checking it out every 30 seconds, then its possible to find some nice SFRs further inland. But, like a lot of Westside, its very crowded and cramped – SFRs rarely come with more than a 5000 sq ft lot. Plus the traffic all over Westside has increased exponentially in the last 6 or so years.Personally, I’d be tempted to live over the hill in the south San Fernando Valley – Sherman Oaks, Encino, Tarzana, Studio City, etc…houses are bigger, as are lots, tend to be cheaper and a lot quieter traffic-wise.
To its detriment, its about 12 miles from Santa Monica, over small north-south canyon roads (or the 405) that can get very congested in the rush hour.Plus, of course, you would have to live with the stigma of being a ‘Valley Dweller”.
ParticipantI’d second Westside Rentals too – got both of my last places through them.
It sucks that they charge, but there really isn’t anything else that compares to it for rental properties.
BTW – if you know of any other people in the same boat (ie just moved to L.A, need a rental), then pool your money together and share the password.Unfortunately, I don’t know anyone looking at the moment, or I’d pass on an already paid for password.
I’d also second that L.A is big, dirty and expensive – I’d so be outta here if my husband didn’t have a good job in Santa Monica.
If you’re working in SM, and are horrifed by the prices (you’re not the only one), you might consider renting in West L.A – west of Centinela (90025, 90024). Its a tad less expensive than SM proper, and has a lot of apartments/condos/townhouses.
Venice is a double-edged sword: there’s some very nice parts, and some really awful parts, and often these two are on the other side of the road from each other!
Venice is also insanely crowded in summer – but if you don’t mind looky loos walking past your house checking it out every 30 seconds, then its possible to find some nice SFRs further inland. But, like a lot of Westside, its very crowded and cramped – SFRs rarely come with more than a 5000 sq ft lot. Plus the traffic all over Westside has increased exponentially in the last 6 or so years.Personally, I’d be tempted to live over the hill in the south San Fernando Valley – Sherman Oaks, Encino, Tarzana, Studio City, etc…houses are bigger, as are lots, tend to be cheaper and a lot quieter traffic-wise.
To its detriment, its about 12 miles from Santa Monica, over small north-south canyon roads (or the 405) that can get very congested in the rush hour.Plus, of course, you would have to live with the stigma of being a ‘Valley Dweller”.
ParticipantI’d second Westside Rentals too – got both of my last places through them.
It sucks that they charge, but there really isn’t anything else that compares to it for rental properties.
BTW – if you know of any other people in the same boat (ie just moved to L.A, need a rental), then pool your money together and share the password.Unfortunately, I don’t know anyone looking at the moment, or I’d pass on an already paid for password.
I’d also second that L.A is big, dirty and expensive – I’d so be outta here if my husband didn’t have a good job in Santa Monica.
If you’re working in SM, and are horrifed by the prices (you’re not the only one), you might consider renting in West L.A – west of Centinela (90025, 90024). Its a tad less expensive than SM proper, and has a lot of apartments/condos/townhouses.
Venice is a double-edged sword: there’s some very nice parts, and some really awful parts, and often these two are on the other side of the road from each other!
Venice is also insanely crowded in summer – but if you don’t mind looky loos walking past your house checking it out every 30 seconds, then its possible to find some nice SFRs further inland. But, like a lot of Westside, its very crowded and cramped – SFRs rarely come with more than a 5000 sq ft lot. Plus the traffic all over Westside has increased exponentially in the last 6 or so years.Personally, I’d be tempted to live over the hill in the south San Fernando Valley – Sherman Oaks, Encino, Tarzana, Studio City, etc…houses are bigger, as are lots, tend to be cheaper and a lot quieter traffic-wise.
To its detriment, its about 12 miles from Santa Monica, over small north-south canyon roads (or the 405) that can get very congested in the rush hour.Plus, of course, you would have to live with the stigma of being a ‘Valley Dweller”.
-
AuthorPosts
