[temeculaguy]

It happened, SDSU finally won a game in the NCAA tournament. First time in school history. I’m trying not to look past Temple and at UCON, but I am. UCOn scares the crap out of me, hell it all scares me. But no matter what, I’m OK with whatever happens from here on in, because we finally punched our dance card. It’s like losing your virginity or getting your drivers license, it’s rite of passage, from here there will be great adventures, even better stories and probably a few mishaps along the way. But life is supposed to be that way and after 90 years of Aztec basketball, we’ve got a full tank of gas and a case of condoms, bring it on, we have finally arrived at the party.

[temeculaguy]

It happened, SDSU finally won a game in the NCAA tournament. First time in school history. I’m trying not to look past Temple and at UCON, but I am. UCOn scares the crap out of me, hell it all scares me. But no matter what, I’m OK with whatever happens from here on in, because we finally punched our dance card. It’s like losing your virginity or getting your drivers license, it’s rite of passage, from here there will be great adventures, even better stories and probably a few mishaps along the way. But life is supposed to be that way and after 90 years of Aztec basketball, we’ve got a full tank of gas and a case of condoms, bring it on, we have finally arrived at the party.

[temeculaguy]

It happened, SDSU finally won a game in the NCAA tournament. First time in school history. I’m trying not to look past Temple and at UCON, but I am. UCOn scares the crap out of me, hell it all scares me. But no matter what, I’m OK with whatever happens from here on in, because we finally punched our dance card. It’s like losing your virginity or getting your drivers license, it’s rite of passage, from here there will be great adventures, even better stories and probably a few mishaps along the way. But life is supposed to be that way and after 90 years of Aztec basketball, we’ve got a full tank of gas and a case of condoms, bring it on, we have finally arrived at the party.

[temeculaguy]

It happened, SDSU finally won a game in the NCAA tournament. First time in school history. I’m trying not to look past Temple and at UCON, but I am. UCOn scares the crap out of me, hell it all scares me. But no matter what, I’m OK with whatever happens from here on in, because we finally punched our dance card. It’s like losing your virginity or getting your drivers license, it’s rite of passage, from here there will be great adventures, even better stories and probably a few mishaps along the way. But life is supposed to be that way and after 90 years of Aztec basketball, we’ve got a full tank of gas and a case of condoms, bring it on, we have finally arrived at the party.

[temeculaguy]

I’m not sure that the assumption that when rents rise to a level where it makes more sense to buy, that most people will buy. Here in the outskirts, we crossed that threshold over two years ago. It didn’t change the rental market hardly at all. Vacancy rates seemed the same if not tighter, rents didn’t go down, I just checked my 2006-2008 rental, up about 10% total. Yet it’s cheaper to buy that place than rent it, right now and has been that way 2+ years. In 2008, when I moved out, I could have bought for 140k, rent was $1500, rent now is closer to 1600-1650, buying at about 160k, so it’s the same numbers, it’s still a few hundred cheaper to buy plus the tax deduction. I figured the taxes, hoa, insurance and pmi for an fha loan at about 600 mo, mort at about 600, so it was 300 less than renting. They do sell them quickly when they list, but they also rent out quick, within days.

So why is this? I think it’s a bunch of stuff, there are losts of people with crappy credit, probably more than ever before. It’s hard to gt a loan with crappy credit. People are afraid values will go down, I suppose that will be in the front of people’s minds for about a decade. People have minimal faith in their employment, even those with jobs are scared.

For all of these reason, and a few more, I think there will be a lot of people who will rent even if they can buy and it’s cheaper to buy. Just because it makes sense doesn’t mean people will do it. That same complex I’m referring to sold the units at about 400k for years, even though rent was $1500. It didn’t make sense to buy, but they did. Most people are just not that bright, it’s not just a few, it’s most, so rents could go up, purchase prices could stay the same or even go down and nothing will change, people are idiots, plain and simple.

Now in SD, it’s still cheaper to rent, but when that changes, I think there will still be lots of renters, the patient piggies finally buying aren’t enough to skew the stats.

[temeculaguy]

I’m not sure that the assumption that when rents rise to a level where it makes more sense to buy, that most people will buy. Here in the outskirts, we crossed that threshold over two years ago. It didn’t change the rental market hardly at all. Vacancy rates seemed the same if not tighter, rents didn’t go down, I just checked my 2006-2008 rental, up about 10% total. Yet it’s cheaper to buy that place than rent it, right now and has been that way 2+ years. In 2008, when I moved out, I could have bought for 140k, rent was $1500, rent now is closer to 1600-1650, buying at about 160k, so it’s the same numbers, it’s still a few hundred cheaper to buy plus the tax deduction. I figured the taxes, hoa, insurance and pmi for an fha loan at about 600 mo, mort at about 600, so it was 300 less than renting. They do sell them quickly when they list, but they also rent out quick, within days.

So why is this? I think it’s a bunch of stuff, there are losts of people with crappy credit, probably more than ever before. It’s hard to gt a loan with crappy credit. People are afraid values will go down, I suppose that will be in the front of people’s minds for about a decade. People have minimal faith in their employment, even those with jobs are scared.

For all of these reason, and a few more, I think there will be a lot of people who will rent even if they can buy and it’s cheaper to buy. Just because it makes sense doesn’t mean people will do it. That same complex I’m referring to sold the units at about 400k for years, even though rent was $1500. It didn’t make sense to buy, but they did. Most people are just not that bright, it’s not just a few, it’s most, so rents could go up, purchase prices could stay the same or even go down and nothing will change, people are idiots, plain and simple.

Now in SD, it’s still cheaper to rent, but when that changes, I think there will still be lots of renters, the patient piggies finally buying aren’t enough to skew the stats.

[temeculaguy]

I’m not sure that the assumption that when rents rise to a level where it makes more sense to buy, that most people will buy. Here in the outskirts, we crossed that threshold over two years ago. It didn’t change the rental market hardly at all. Vacancy rates seemed the same if not tighter, rents didn’t go down, I just checked my 2006-2008 rental, up about 10% total. Yet it’s cheaper to buy that place than rent it, right now and has been that way 2+ years. In 2008, when I moved out, I could have bought for 140k, rent was $1500, rent now is closer to 1600-1650, buying at about 160k, so it’s the same numbers, it’s still a few hundred cheaper to buy plus the tax deduction. I figured the taxes, hoa, insurance and pmi for an fha loan at about 600 mo, mort at about 600, so it was 300 less than renting. They do sell them quickly when they list, but they also rent out quick, within days.

So why is this? I think it’s a bunch of stuff, there are losts of people with crappy credit, probably more than ever before. It’s hard to gt a loan with crappy credit. People are afraid values will go down, I suppose that will be in the front of people’s minds for about a decade. People have minimal faith in their employment, even those with jobs are scared.

For all of these reason, and a few more, I think there will be a lot of people who will rent even if they can buy and it’s cheaper to buy. Just because it makes sense doesn’t mean people will do it. That same complex I’m referring to sold the units at about 400k for years, even though rent was $1500. It didn’t make sense to buy, but they did. Most people are just not that bright, it’s not just a few, it’s most, so rents could go up, purchase prices could stay the same or even go down and nothing will change, people are idiots, plain and simple.

Now in SD, it’s still cheaper to rent, but when that changes, I think there will still be lots of renters, the patient piggies finally buying aren’t enough to skew the stats.

[temeculaguy]

I’m not sure that the assumption that when rents rise to a level where it makes more sense to buy, that most people will buy. Here in the outskirts, we crossed that threshold over two years ago. It didn’t change the rental market hardly at all. Vacancy rates seemed the same if not tighter, rents didn’t go down, I just checked my 2006-2008 rental, up about 10% total. Yet it’s cheaper to buy that place than rent it, right now and has been that way 2+ years. In 2008, when I moved out, I could have bought for 140k, rent was $1500, rent now is closer to 1600-1650, buying at about 160k, so it’s the same numbers, it’s still a few hundred cheaper to buy plus the tax deduction. I figured the taxes, hoa, insurance and pmi for an fha loan at about 600 mo, mort at about 600, so it was 300 less than renting. They do sell them quickly when they list, but they also rent out quick, within days.

So why is this? I think it’s a bunch of stuff, there are losts of people with crappy credit, probably more than ever before. It’s hard to gt a loan with crappy credit. People are afraid values will go down, I suppose that will be in the front of people’s minds for about a decade. People have minimal faith in their employment, even those with jobs are scared.

For all of these reason, and a few more, I think there will be a lot of people who will rent even if they can buy and it’s cheaper to buy. Just because it makes sense doesn’t mean people will do it. That same complex I’m referring to sold the units at about 400k for years, even though rent was $1500. It didn’t make sense to buy, but they did. Most people are just not that bright, it’s not just a few, it’s most, so rents could go up, purchase prices could stay the same or even go down and nothing will change, people are idiots, plain and simple.

Now in SD, it’s still cheaper to rent, but when that changes, I think there will still be lots of renters, the patient piggies finally buying aren’t enough to skew the stats.

[temeculaguy]

I’m not sure that the assumption that when rents rise to a level where it makes more sense to buy, that most people will buy. Here in the outskirts, we crossed that threshold over two years ago. It didn’t change the rental market hardly at all. Vacancy rates seemed the same if not tighter, rents didn’t go down, I just checked my 2006-2008 rental, up about 10% total. Yet it’s cheaper to buy that place than rent it, right now and has been that way 2+ years. In 2008, when I moved out, I could have bought for 140k, rent was $1500, rent now is closer to 1600-1650, buying at about 160k, so it’s the same numbers, it’s still a few hundred cheaper to buy plus the tax deduction. I figured the taxes, hoa, insurance and pmi for an fha loan at about 600 mo, mort at about 600, so it was 300 less than renting. They do sell them quickly when they list, but they also rent out quick, within days.

So why is this? I think it’s a bunch of stuff, there are losts of people with crappy credit, probably more than ever before. It’s hard to gt a loan with crappy credit. People are afraid values will go down, I suppose that will be in the front of people’s minds for about a decade. People have minimal faith in their employment, even those with jobs are scared.

For all of these reason, and a few more, I think there will be a lot of people who will rent even if they can buy and it’s cheaper to buy. Just because it makes sense doesn’t mean people will do it. That same complex I’m referring to sold the units at about 400k for years, even though rent was $1500. It didn’t make sense to buy, but they did. Most people are just not that bright, it’s not just a few, it’s most, so rents could go up, purchase prices could stay the same or even go down and nothing will change, people are idiots, plain and simple.

Now in SD, it’s still cheaper to rent, but when that changes, I think there will still be lots of renters, the patient piggies finally buying aren’t enough to skew the stats.

[temeculaguy]

Forgive me if this was already mentioned, the thread went sideways in it’s usual way towards the end of page 1, so I skipped it, I’ve heard enough of the who’s fault it is/pension fights and wanted to comment on NPR.

Like others, I like parts of it. I could be called “left leaning” at times, but that’s not why I like NPR. In certain groups I might be called “right leaning,” and that is also not why I agree that all public funding should stop for NPR. This may sound odd, but I like NPR and PBS and I also want all their public money taken away.

NPR has outlived it’s purpose. With the advent of the internet, 1000 channels, satellite radio, PPV, mobile devices, and about a dozen things yet to be invented, the public doesn’t need uncensored information. This very blog, and the thousands like it serve that purpose at no expense to the taxpayers. You Tube, Facebook, myspace, all are examples of how people have a vehicle to spread ideas, learn, connect and even become famous. When America had less than ten television channels, one or two newspapers per town and a handful of talk radio channels, NPR filled the void. There is no more void. Strip the politics out of it, forget about what team you are on, there isn’t anything NPR does that can’t be done without taxpayer money.

My favorite part of NPR/PBS was it used to be the only place to see certain concerts, especially those in another language (I blame PBS for the fact that I secretly listen to Pavarotti, Domingo, Bocelli and the like. Outside of PBS, I’d never see some of that stuff 20 years ago, but that no longer holds true. I’m sure everyone else has something they dig. But the ability to broadcast from one’s bedroom or share files has made it so simple to find anything I want, when i want. If enough people want their programming and don’t want commercials or ad driven programs, they can pay for it. I pay for XM/Sirius, I pay for HBO/Showtime/Cinemax, I pay for various sports. I do not expect tax payers to pay for me to watch Dexter without commercials, that’s my responsibility and my choice. NPR and PBS have not only outlived their usefulness, they actually contradict the principles they were based on, which was to give people an alternative, a choice, something that wasn’t influenced by money or politics.

The good stuff will get picked up by other cable channels, the radio shows people want will find their way to XM and the internet. The public can no longer be deprived of anything, that horse left the barn years ago.

[temeculaguy]

Forgive me if this was already mentioned, the thread went sideways in it’s usual way towards the end of page 1, so I skipped it, I’ve heard enough of the who’s fault it is/pension fights and wanted to comment on NPR.

Like others, I like parts of it. I could be called “left leaning” at times, but that’s not why I like NPR. In certain groups I might be called “right leaning,” and that is also not why I agree that all public funding should stop for NPR. This may sound odd, but I like NPR and PBS and I also want all their public money taken away.

NPR has outlived it’s purpose. With the advent of the internet, 1000 channels, satellite radio, PPV, mobile devices, and about a dozen things yet to be invented, the public doesn’t need uncensored information. This very blog, and the thousands like it serve that purpose at no expense to the taxpayers. You Tube, Facebook, myspace, all are examples of how people have a vehicle to spread ideas, learn, connect and even become famous. When America had less than ten television channels, one or two newspapers per town and a handful of talk radio channels, NPR filled the void. There is no more void. Strip the politics out of it, forget about what team you are on, there isn’t anything NPR does that can’t be done without taxpayer money.

My favorite part of NPR/PBS was it used to be the only place to see certain concerts, especially those in another language (I blame PBS for the fact that I secretly listen to Pavarotti, Domingo, Bocelli and the like. Outside of PBS, I’d never see some of that stuff 20 years ago, but that no longer holds true. I’m sure everyone else has something they dig. But the ability to broadcast from one’s bedroom or share files has made it so simple to find anything I want, when i want. If enough people want their programming and don’t want commercials or ad driven programs, they can pay for it. I pay for XM/Sirius, I pay for HBO/Showtime/Cinemax, I pay for various sports. I do not expect tax payers to pay for me to watch Dexter without commercials, that’s my responsibility and my choice. NPR and PBS have not only outlived their usefulness, they actually contradict the principles they were based on, which was to give people an alternative, a choice, something that wasn’t influenced by money or politics.

The good stuff will get picked up by other cable channels, the radio shows people want will find their way to XM and the internet. The public can no longer be deprived of anything, that horse left the barn years ago.

[temeculaguy]

Forgive me if this was already mentioned, the thread went sideways in it’s usual way towards the end of page 1, so I skipped it, I’ve heard enough of the who’s fault it is/pension fights and wanted to comment on NPR.

Like others, I like parts of it. I could be called “left leaning” at times, but that’s not why I like NPR. In certain groups I might be called “right leaning,” and that is also not why I agree that all public funding should stop for NPR. This may sound odd, but I like NPR and PBS and I also want all their public money taken away.

NPR has outlived it’s purpose. With the advent of the internet, 1000 channels, satellite radio, PPV, mobile devices, and about a dozen things yet to be invented, the public doesn’t need uncensored information. This very blog, and the thousands like it serve that purpose at no expense to the taxpayers. You Tube, Facebook, myspace, all are examples of how people have a vehicle to spread ideas, learn, connect and even become famous. When America had less than ten television channels, one or two newspapers per town and a handful of talk radio channels, NPR filled the void. There is no more void. Strip the politics out of it, forget about what team you are on, there isn’t anything NPR does that can’t be done without taxpayer money.

My favorite part of NPR/PBS was it used to be the only place to see certain concerts, especially those in another language (I blame PBS for the fact that I secretly listen to Pavarotti, Domingo, Bocelli and the like. Outside of PBS, I’d never see some of that stuff 20 years ago, but that no longer holds true. I’m sure everyone else has something they dig. But the ability to broadcast from one’s bedroom or share files has made it so simple to find anything I want, when i want. If enough people want their programming and don’t want commercials or ad driven programs, they can pay for it. I pay for XM/Sirius, I pay for HBO/Showtime/Cinemax, I pay for various sports. I do not expect tax payers to pay for me to watch Dexter without commercials, that’s my responsibility and my choice. NPR and PBS have not only outlived their usefulness, they actually contradict the principles they were based on, which was to give people an alternative, a choice, something that wasn’t influenced by money or politics.

The good stuff will get picked up by other cable channels, the radio shows people want will find their way to XM and the internet. The public can no longer be deprived of anything, that horse left the barn years ago.

[temeculaguy]

Forgive me if this was already mentioned, the thread went sideways in it’s usual way towards the end of page 1, so I skipped it, I’ve heard enough of the who’s fault it is/pension fights and wanted to comment on NPR.

Like others, I like parts of it. I could be called “left leaning” at times, but that’s not why I like NPR. In certain groups I might be called “right leaning,” and that is also not why I agree that all public funding should stop for NPR. This may sound odd, but I like NPR and PBS and I also want all their public money taken away.

NPR has outlived it’s purpose. With the advent of the internet, 1000 channels, satellite radio, PPV, mobile devices, and about a dozen things yet to be invented, the public doesn’t need uncensored information. This very blog, and the thousands like it serve that purpose at no expense to the taxpayers. You Tube, Facebook, myspace, all are examples of how people have a vehicle to spread ideas, learn, connect and even become famous. When America had less than ten television channels, one or two newspapers per town and a handful of talk radio channels, NPR filled the void. There is no more void. Strip the politics out of it, forget about what team you are on, there isn’t anything NPR does that can’t be done without taxpayer money.

My favorite part of NPR/PBS was it used to be the only place to see certain concerts, especially those in another language (I blame PBS for the fact that I secretly listen to Pavarotti, Domingo, Bocelli and the like. Outside of PBS, I’d never see some of that stuff 20 years ago, but that no longer holds true. I’m sure everyone else has something they dig. But the ability to broadcast from one’s bedroom or share files has made it so simple to find anything I want, when i want. If enough people want their programming and don’t want commercials or ad driven programs, they can pay for it. I pay for XM/Sirius, I pay for HBO/Showtime/Cinemax, I pay for various sports. I do not expect tax payers to pay for me to watch Dexter without commercials, that’s my responsibility and my choice. NPR and PBS have not only outlived their usefulness, they actually contradict the principles they were based on, which was to give people an alternative, a choice, something that wasn’t influenced by money or politics.

The good stuff will get picked up by other cable channels, the radio shows people want will find their way to XM and the internet. The public can no longer be deprived of anything, that horse left the barn years ago.

[temeculaguy]

Forgive me if this was already mentioned, the thread went sideways in it’s usual way towards the end of page 1, so I skipped it, I’ve heard enough of the who’s fault it is/pension fights and wanted to comment on NPR.

Like others, I like parts of it. I could be called “left leaning” at times, but that’s not why I like NPR. In certain groups I might be called “right leaning,” and that is also not why I agree that all public funding should stop for NPR. This may sound odd, but I like NPR and PBS and I also want all their public money taken away.

NPR has outlived it’s purpose. With the advent of the internet, 1000 channels, satellite radio, PPV, mobile devices, and about a dozen things yet to be invented, the public doesn’t need uncensored information. This very blog, and the thousands like it serve that purpose at no expense to the taxpayers. You Tube, Facebook, myspace, all are examples of how people have a vehicle to spread ideas, learn, connect and even become famous. When America had less than ten television channels, one or two newspapers per town and a handful of talk radio channels, NPR filled the void. There is no more void. Strip the politics out of it, forget about what team you are on, there isn’t anything NPR does that can’t be done without taxpayer money.

My favorite part of NPR/PBS was it used to be the only place to see certain concerts, especially those in another language (I blame PBS for the fact that I secretly listen to Pavarotti, Domingo, Bocelli and the like. Outside of PBS, I’d never see some of that stuff 20 years ago, but that no longer holds true. I’m sure everyone else has something they dig. But the ability to broadcast from one’s bedroom or share files has made it so simple to find anything I want, when i want. If enough people want their programming and don’t want commercials or ad driven programs, they can pay for it. I pay for XM/Sirius, I pay for HBO/Showtime/Cinemax, I pay for various sports. I do not expect tax payers to pay for me to watch Dexter without commercials, that’s my responsibility and my choice. NPR and PBS have not only outlived their usefulness, they actually contradict the principles they were based on, which was to give people an alternative, a choice, something that wasn’t influenced by money or politics.

The good stuff will get picked up by other cable channels, the radio shows people want will find their way to XM and the internet. The public can no longer be deprived of anything, that horse left the barn years ago.

[temeculaguy]

You might think that, but the infrastructure in cities, especially the mass trasnit is a total waste as well. Almost every bus and rail costs more per passenger and carbon than solo drivers, it’s a myth. Even other countries with fantastic transit, let’s say the UK, loses 30-50% on every passenger.

Bridges to nowhere are a problem with politics, we should fix that, but freeways and paved roads kick the dogsnot out of any subway or buses, anywhere, because the users pay more than the cost, not so in any mass transit operation. In the US the taxpayers get an average of 20 cents back in fares on every dollar spent.

I’ll give you a pass brian, you are young, I had these questions and ideals in my youth too. It’s nice to see such intelligence without wisdom, it makes me think of simpler times.

It will happen, I’m sure of it, you are a smart guy. When you mix intelligence and an open mind, with time and experience, wisdom is usually the result.

Here’s a little sneak preview of how you will feel in 20 years. You’ll see the world, you’ll envy what they do right, you’ll get frustrated at why most americans are different and unappreciative of these international marvels of peace and harmony.

Then you’ll come full circle, you’ll realize, we are the frustrated Europeans, we got it right. Then some bad stuff will happen, maybe somewhere else or maybe here and you will see the difference. But for now, hate your government, hate the rural folks, or those that resist what you see as cosmopolitan. But if god forbid, we have a similar disaster that Japan is facing right now, that church going rural living old lady will be the first one to show up with pie and blankets, she’ll take strangers into her home and give them anything she has. My travels have caused me to meet these rural folks in some troubled times and while i don’t share all of their beliefs, I’ll be damned if i dont admire them and that i thank the stars that they exist, so they can have a bridge if that’s what makes them happy.

[Author]

Posts