never understood the point of wanting a bunch of things

i keep a bare minimum of belongings except for books and computer parts (both of which i use for my job)

8/21/2010 11:09:19 AM

Quote :

"People who have a job and buy goods drive our economy. If people like him stop buying things they "don't need" the economic shit would hit the fan."

Prices would adjust over time to eliminate unemployment. In the long run, the number of jobs in the economy is dictated by the number of people seeking work and the quantity of goods produced is dictated by the quantity of goods demanded by shoppers.

As such, if God changed our behavior tomorrow to want less stuff, this would also dramatically reduce the demand for hours of employment, as those with sufficient savings to afford their new lower consumption would retire and everyone else would soon demand a 20 hour work week. After a few years of disruption, employment and production would be stable again, with no surplus of either workers or goods.

That said, the government would be bankrupt, as less economic activity would produce less tax revenue. But even this is manageable, as all the government's obligations are self imposed and with a simple 51% majority all of them can be made to go away.

[Edited on August 21, 2010 at 11:32 AM. Reason : .,.]

8/21/2010 11:29:24 AM

much better for us to work 70 hour weeks so that rich people can play with things

8/21/2010 11:32:35 AM

Quote :

"I dont care what kind of job a person has....any person who works for a living doing no matter what menial task is deserving of respect. "

your devotion to production is fucking lame

you appear to lack any idea of true human potential

8/21/2010 12:15:37 PM

Quote :

"your devotion to production is fucking lame you appear to lack any idea of true human potential"

you and your friend McDanger appear to be a-holes.

why look down your nose at a person working for living, no matter what they do? at least they support themselves. you would rather them not work? live off of the "rich?"

8/21/2010 5:46:08 PM

Quote :

"If I borrow 400,000 from a bank and buy a house and pay that bank 300,000 over a 2 year period."

This is awesome logic. So you can make a 12,500 payment a month for 2 years but cant scratch up enough to pay the 1600 mortgage payment. Or better yet, refi the 100k and pay 500. Now do you honestly think that someone who is capable of making such income is capable of this kinda of stupidity?

8/21/2010 6:18:50 PM

Look, it was a hypothetical example and you missed the whole point. The point it, banks take people's equity all the time.

8/21/2010 6:30:34 PM

^only not so much. Do you understand how a secured loan works? YOU take the banks money to buy whatever it is you are buying. In order to do that, they set the interest rate to account for the RISK and secure it against the property. This is reason why all banks USED to required people people put down 20% before getting a loan, and why you pay PMI if you dont have 20% now. To reduce risk to the bank.

Now if you quit PAYING the bank, ie living up to YOUR side of the deal, then they have a right to take back the property bc it is part of the secured debt.

Here is a little tidbit for you mamba, if you dont want to get foreclosed either dont miss a payment (well several actually) or dont borrow the money in the first place. Banks dont repo houses they dont hold a lien on.

[Edited on August 21, 2010 at 6:39 PM. Reason : .]

8/21/2010 6:37:28 PM

To be more accurate, people give the bank their equity all the time. Of course, there is a limit to this, as anyone discussing this should know. Foreclosure is governed by the contract you signed with the bank, such that the bank is only allowed to cover the costs of the foreclosure. If the foreclosed house sells for $100k at auction, you owned $20k in principle and back-interest plus the bank pockets the fees and penalties of the foreclosure, say $20k, and writes you a check for the remaining $60k.

But home buyers are not stupid. This almost never happens. No one that has $80k in equity in their home would ever dare miss a mortgage payment. They would see that they are low on funds and sell the house themselves before foreclosure. In almost every case, foreclosure happens when the equity is either negative or disputable (the house may be worth more than you owe, but it is just so much less effort to let the bank figure that out).

8/21/2010 6:44:34 PM

The hilarity is, mambagrill claimed people are inherently good, and yet they'll do shit like this

http://www.nbcdfw.com/around-town/real-estate/Frisco-Soldier-Gets-Home-Back-After-HOA-Foreclosure-99556729.html

Quote :

"The two-story brick home was purchased at auction for $3,201 by Mark DiSanti of Dallas and Steeplechase Productions. DiSanti sold it in May 2009 for $135,000 to Jad Aboul-Jibin of Plano. Complicating the case was Michael Clauer's service overseas. His wife said she had severe anxiety and depression over her husband's absence and let mail pile up. She didn't open any of the certified letters and didn't realize the home had been sold until summer 2009, when Aboul-Jibin sent a letter asking for rent."

I can't even begin to contemplate how fucked up this is. You're going to take someones home over a fucking $977 debt? REALLY?!


HOAs are WAAAYYY more evil than banks are.

8/21/2010 7:07:29 PM

^ Well, that there could be a real problem. It seems to me such proceedings should require proof of notification before such things. Had they been notified and still defaulted, then so be it. In my book, three letters do not constitute proof of notification for such a proceeding.

That said, she did sign for the letters, so the HOA had signature proof she received them. At some point people just need to friggin' read their certified letters. Maybe if they had written "Notice of Foreclosure" on the envelope in big red lettering?

[Edited on August 21, 2010 at 8:25 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/21/2010 8:21:56 PM

Quote :

"They would see that they are low on funds and sell the house themselves before foreclosure."

If they owe 100k on a home worth 200k and the market is dead meaning nobody will buy the house then they are stuck.

Quote :

" they set the interest rate to account for the RISK and secure it against the property. This is reason why all banks USED to required people people put down 20% before getting a loan, and why you pay PMI if you dont have 20% now. To reduce risk to the bank. "

Except the fact that all of these things actually INCREASE the risk of the loan by putting further financial strain on the people who might not always be able to make the payments anyway.

Its opposite logic. Charge people who can't afford more and people who can afford it, charge them less.

8/21/2010 10:29:56 PM

Quote :

"If they owe 100k on a home worth 200k and the market is dead meaning nobody will buy the house then they are stuck."

Then it is not worth 200k. In a free market, prices change. We don't have a right to not make bad investments. There are people making lots of money by being willing to buy any house at a moments notice. Check the yellow pages. You will lose a lot of money on the sale, but it will be less than the Bank will charge to foreclose on you.

Quote :

"Its opposite logic. Charge people who can't afford more and people who can afford it, charge them less."

You have said that before, and I will tell you now what I told you then. This is how markets work. People do not work for free, they are not going to issue loans without a profit. As there is less risk (cost) associated with making loans to people that can pay, they are charged less. It gets worse for people that cannot pay, because they are refused loans at any interest rate. This is the voluntary economy setting prices. No tweak of the law can fix this.


What was needed is more money on the table. The only money available was the government's. You can use taxpayer dollars to give mortgages to the poor at subsidized rates, as you wanted us to do. It has already lost $300 billion, with little discernible impact on the high rates paid by the poor. These losses continue to mount because some people are bad risks and for the good of society need to be to renters.

Do you see why the rest of us don't like how your ideals have worked out in practice?

8/21/2010 10:48:43 PM

Oh for fucks sake. You always do a solid job of describing econ theory until you get to something you think you can pin on the government and then you go into uber extreme denial mode about the role the private market played in fucking themselves with a giant capitalist dildo.

8/21/2010 10:55:33 PM

^They haven't worked out because of wall street and greedy banks trying to make money off of everything. If it was purely government loans, this would mean no subsidizing, just government funds, no mortgage backed funds being sold and no shark banks smelling blood in the water on a missed payment.

Quote :

"There are people making lots of money by being willing to buy any house at a moments notice. Check the yellow pages. You will lose a lot of money on the sale"

These people are the scum of the earth.

Quote :

" risk (cost) "

no. it actually costs less to lend to poor people because its smaller sums of money. it pretty much costs the same.

[Edited on August 21, 2010 at 10:58 PM. Reason : less principle]

8/21/2010 10:56:33 PM

Quote :

"Except the fact that all of these things actually INCREASE the risk of the loan by putting further financial strain on the people who might not always be able to make the payments anyway. Its opposite logic. Charge people who can't afford more and people who can afford it, charge them less."

Quote :

"no. it actually costs less to lend to poor people because its smaller sums of money. it pretty much costs the same."

1. If you can't afford the mortgage and the PMI, etc, buy a smaller house, or rent until you can afford/put down 20% on the one you want.

2. Opposite logic? Costs less? Maybe if you view banks as charities, but they're not. They're businesses. They're people who are making investments with their money. If a person is a higher risk, it takes a higher interest rate to justify lending to (investing in) them. It's no different from anything else. Junk bonds yield more than treasury notes. You're infinite more likely to score huge capital gains by investing in a start-up microcap than you are in a blue chip.

You're also more likely to lose your ass. If it wasn't for the greater return (in this case, mortgage interest rate), there'd be no reason to invest (in this case, loan money to for a house) at all. It's a good thing those greedy bankers charge the higher risk people more to get loans--the alternative is refusing to lend to them at all.


Additionally, interestingly, you don't have to make a shitpile of income to get a good interest rate. You have to have a solid track record of being responsible with money, and you have to have a favorable debt:income ratio (i.e., live within your means).

Quote :

"These people are the scum of the earth."

Why? You don't have to sell to them. If they didn't exist, even more people would get foreclosed on. If you're willing to sell to them at a fire-sale price, then by definition, everyone is getting exactly what they want.

8/21/2010 11:50:50 PM

they are exploiting these peoples situations. If anything, they should give the original owner a cut when they turn around a sell the house a month later for double.

And stop spouting off how the mortgage ind works. I was in it once. You're missing the fact that I understand well how they work and have a problem with how it works. Spelling out how it works doesn't change that.

Quote :

" Additionally, interestingly, you don't have to make a shitpile of income to get a good interest rate. You have to have a solid track record of being responsible with money, and you have to have a favorable debt:income ratio (i.e., live within your means)."

You don't even realize the cycle here. For people who are poor. Buying food, medicine and the bear essentials is "living beyond your means". These people get hiiiigh interests rates on their automobile, low interest rates on thier bank and it costs them more just to do the normal things. Then they end up paying out the ass in interest and pay 10 times mroe for everything.

Then when its time to buy a house the debt to income ratio means they have to pay more rent just because they are poor.

This higher rent means they have less money and its a vicious cycle.

Then if they get sick they are foreclosed and some coyote swoops in to buy thier house @ 50% value, sell it at 85 and STEAL the 35% that was their equity.

[Edited on August 22, 2010 at 12:02 AM. Reason : poor stay poor ]

[Edited on August 22, 2010 at 12:03 AM. Reason : k]

8/21/2010 11:57:41 PM

1. If you feel "exploited" by one of these "coyotes", don't sell to them.

2.

Quote :

"These people get hiiiigh interests rates on their automobile"

Then don't finance the car. Get something you can pay cash for. People don't want to do that, though...they want instant gratification and to keep up with the Jones'.

...and even if you want to finance a few thousand bucks (which will have a payment of <$100/month, about on par with a cell phone bill) for a car, you won't get a shitty interest rate just because you have a low income. I know, because I took out an unsecured loan for a motorcycle when I was in college, making jack shit. If you work full time at McDonalds, you will make more than I was at the time, and you would get a better interest rate still by doing a normal, secured auto loan.

You will get a shitty interest rate for missing payments on stuff and being irresponsible, and that's your own fucking fault. This goes back to what truly constitutes a "need". You can live within your means even at a meager income...you just can't live like someone make twice the income (who's likely also swimming in debt to live ABOVE his means).

[Edited on August 22, 2010 at 12:20 AM. Reason : the poor do stay poor, but it's DESPITE our attempts to help, not because they're exploited]

[Edited on August 22, 2010 at 12:21 AM. Reason : we desperately need to teach personal finance, beyond simple budgeting, in highschool]

8/22/2010 12:19:56 AM

Quote :

"You always do a solid job of describing econ theory until you get to something you think you can pin on the government and then you go into uber extreme denial mode about the role the private market played in fucking themselves with a giant capitalist dildo."

Odd how the private market managed to drain $300 billion from the federal treasury all by itself... One might think it takes an act of Congress to do such a thing. Oh well, my mistake I guess.

Quote :

"These people are the scum of the earth."

You would prefer foreclosure? What do you think society should do about people that miss their mortgage payments? What about people that stop paying their electric bill? If we never foreclosed on anyone or cut off anyone's heat, then why would anyone ever pay their bills?

Quote :

"poor stay poor"

What would you have us do? They are charged more because it costs more to serve them. They buy in smaller quantities, live in unsafe neighborhoods, and are more often untrustworthy. All these have been studied and verified by economists for at least a century. And they all make it more expensive to serve the poor as customers, and so they are charged more for identical goods, not just credit. What would you have us do about it? Scrap the price system for resource allocation? Nationalizing the nation's economy will not make the poor better off.

the alternative is to subsidize them directly. Leave the markets alone with their unfair results, but have an Earned Income Tax Credit to subsidize the working poor directly, so they have the money needed to pay the higher prices produced by the market. Why is this not enough for you? How is having the IRS cut a few million checks every year not a much simpler solution than placing George Bush in charge of food allocation for district 9?

8/22/2010 12:32:03 AM

All I have to say is, mambagrl said she/he worked in the housing industry, yet gives an example of paying $300,000 over two years... I want whatever job THAT guy has..

8/22/2010 1:20:23 AM

Quote :

"Odd how the private market managed to drain $300 billion from the federal treasury all by itself.."

Even in your libertarian fantasy land there will be rich and connected individuals distorting the market in subversive ways that will take time to unwind. While this is going on, they will get enriched with "public" funds. Now please, quote me some academic theories and we'll pretend they are law. Hell, for fun, we may even find some examples that shoot holes in those theories.

8/22/2010 8:29:25 AM

Quote :

"Buying food, medicine and the bear essentials is "living beyond your means". "

Quote :

"Then when its time to buy a house"

If you are having trouble buying a happy meal, you dont need to be buying a house. The reason they pay more is they are more RISK to the person handing out the money. How do you not understand that? The real problem in this country is a lot of people are trying to live a lifestyle above their means. (across all income levels too)

Imagine if I came to you and said I cant pay my 300 a month car payment, my 500 a month rent payment, my credit card bills are late.... but can I borrow 100k, I SWEAR ill pay you 800 a month. Im good for it.

8/22/2010 8:30:41 AM

Can we just ban the resident idiot whore? I read shit like this and I can feel the pressure in my cranium rise as my head is attempting to explode

Quote :

"These people get hiiiigh interests rates on their automobile, low interest rates on thier bank and it costs them more just to do the normal things."

The same people who

Quote :

"Buying food, medicine and the bear essentials is "living beyond your means"."

Also somehow have money for a car AND...fucking AND...have some more left over to stash away in a savings account.

This bitch is brilliant. Just brilliant. Can we award her some sort of prize for her amazing insight into the world of socio-economics?

8/22/2010 9:30:48 AM

Quote :

"1. If you feel "exploited" by one of these "coyotes", don't sell to them."

The other option is getting foreclosed.

This is like a rescue team finding a stranded crew in the ocean and rescuing them under the condition of slavery.

Quote :

" I know, because I took out an unsecured loan for a motorcycle when I was in college, making jack shit. If you work full time at McDonalds, you will make more than I was at the time, and you would get a better interest rate still by doing a normal, secured auto loan. "

How much per week did you have to spend on medicine at the time?

Quote :

"You will get a shitty interest rate for missing payments on stuff and being irresponsible, and that's your own fucking fault. This goes back to what truly constitutes a "need". You can live within your means even at a meager income...you just can't live like someone make twice the income (who's likely also swimming in debt to live ABOVE his means)."

People will always pay for food and medicine first. Thats not being irresponsible. Also, petty credit shouldn't be looked at for things like automobiles or especially houses. When I reform credit theres a lot of things I would change but the first thing on my list would be separating the different types of credit. Consumer credit would be affected by all but automobile credit would only be affected by mortgage/rent credit and mortgage credit would not be affected by anything below it. This is because when money is short people will pay for their car and house before they pay for their credit cards.

Quote :

"we desperately need to teach personal finance, beyond simple budgeting, in highschool]"

Personal finance won't teach people how to overcome making less than what it costs them to live

Quote :

"What do you think society should do about people that miss their mortgage payments? What about people that stop paying their electric bill? If we never foreclosed on anyone or cut off anyone's heat, then why would anyone ever pay their bills? "

There should be a mandatory remodification period of 1-2 years before foreclosure can even be thought about. During this period, the persons income and expenses are calculated into a new payment that they can afford. The loan term is extended. 60 year loan anyone?

Quote :

"live in unsafe neighborhoods, and are more often untrustworthy."

This is a whole nother thread but making all the poor people live in the same area is a bad idea for everyone anyway. Instead they should be spread out so that they lose the "poor" stigma and all the disadvantages that come with living in a dense area of poor people.

Quote :

"Scrap the price system for resource allocation? Nationalizing the nation's economy will not make the poor better off. "

I'm not saying that. Simply scrap the progressive interest hikes on the poor. Let income level and principle determine interest rate in the opposite way it does today. If I'm borrowing 100k its obviously less of a risk the lending 500k to someone else.

Quote :

"the alternative is to subsidize them directly. Leave the markets alone with their unfair results, but have an Earned Income Tax Credit to subsidize the working poor directly, so they have the money needed to pay the higher prices produced by the market. Why is this not enough for you? How is having the IRS cut a few million checks every year not a much simpler solution than placing George Bush in charge of food allocation for district 9?"

We are doing this to a very small degree. Not nearly as much as the first world nations. We need to pay for healthcare and drugs on top of what we are doing as well as geting rid of the "ghetto". Don't say we can't afford it. We can easily afford it. Its just a matter of keeping certain groups from gaining mobility or not.

Quote :

"All I have to say is, mambagrl said she/he worked in the housing industry, yet gives an example of paying $300,000 over two years... I want whatever job THAT guy has.."

I've already said it was just a hypothetical to see a quick point clearly

Quote :

"If you are having trouble buying a happy meal, you dont need to be buying a house."

So you want to require people with medical conditions to stay poor their entire life? Despite how hard/well they work.

Quote :

" Also somehow have money for a car AND...fucking AND...have some more left over to stash away in a savings account."

Because some people have a materialistic love for vehicles and buy 5 of them, and our nations complete lack of incite on how to sustain society, economy and development into the future....you HAVE to have a car to work and you HAVE to be able to afford gas or else you will end up making no money at all.

Also, because of the cost of healthcare, if you have no money saved and get sick then you are completely screwed out of being able to work/pay for food or maybe even dead.

Its not my fault capitalism fucked us out of mass transit and sustainable development

[Edited on August 22, 2010 at 9:54 AM. Reason : a car and savings are required to know you will eat a month from now]

8/22/2010 9:50:04 AM

Quote :

"So you want to require people with medical conditions to stay poor their entire life? Despite how hard/well they work. "

It depends. If they bought medical insurance wouldnt that be covering their medical bills? if their medical conditions keep them from working, that sucks, but there will be a lot of things they wont be able to do, healthwise and financially.

8/22/2010 10:05:54 AM

mambagrl, have you ever visited North America? Nearly everything you said was not just a misinterpretation, but outright false.

Quote :

"We need to pay for healthcare and drugs on top of what we are doing as well as geting rid of the "ghetto". Don't say we can't afford it...you HAVE to have a car to work"

Medicaid exists. The poor already have free healthcare. The EITC also exists. Mass Transit also exists nearly every city in America. Motorcycles are cheap enough that in many instances they can be purchased and maintained for less money than mass transit systems charge for daily use.

Quote :

"There should be a mandatory remodification period of 1-2 years before foreclosure can even be thought about. During this period, the persons income and expenses are calculated into a new payment that they can afford. The loan term is extended. 60 year loan anyone?"

Again, then why would anyone ever not stop paying their mortgage? People pay for housing first because they fear losing it. Without any fear of loss, people will stop paying their mortgage long before they give up their cable TV. Is this what you want? Who do you want to cover all the losses? You are in effect making all mortgages unsecured loans, just like your credit card, what interest rates do these usually carry? Up to 24.99%? I would much rather face the threat of foreclosure than suffer such interest rates. And, it doesn't work. 90+% of all the federal loan modifications just re-defaulted on the new lower payment plans.

Quote :

"This is a whole nother thread but making all the poor people live in the same area is a bad idea for everyone anyway. Instead they should be spread out so that they lose the "poor" stigma and all the disadvantages that come with living in a dense area of poor people."

How? I guess we can do more "urban development", forcibly evict the poor from the ghettos and bulldoze their homes. We did that in the 60s and 70s, they just built new ghettos. I guess you want to set up a government commission, chaired by George Bush, to allocate housing as they see fit?

Quote :

"I'm not saying that. Simply scrap the progressive interest hikes on the poor. Let income level and principle determine interest rate in the opposite way it does today."

Again, how? If you outlaw regressive loan terms, they will stop issuing loans to the poor. Or, more accurately, they will find some loophole to rip off the poor under the regulated interest rates. Would be simpler to just outlaw loans to the poor. Assertions of how the world should be are not legislation and your good intentions do not house the poor. If you want to further nationalize the mortgage industry, say so.

Quote :

"So you want to require people with medical conditions to stay poor their entire life?"

Buying a house does not alleviate poverty. Buying a house can just as easily worsen your poverty. The best insurance against an unstable world is being a renter.

Quote :

"Personal finance won't teach people how to overcome making less than what it costs them to live"

People choose for themselves what it costs for them to live. 50 years ago most Americans lived on far less real income than the poorest full-time working American earns today. They shared apartments, built their own home with their bare hands, kept gardens, and walked to work. The only expense that is arguably unplanned is healthcare, which thanks to Medicaid is arguably free.

[Edited on August 22, 2010 at 11:50 AM. Reason : ,,.]

8/22/2010 11:46:55 AM

i wanted to pick apart your entire post but i think this tidbit shows your complete lack of understand of how the world works, and should cover why you're an idoit

Quote :

"If I'm borrowing 100k its obviously less of a risk the lending 500k to someone else. "

Person A has an income of 30,000 dollars a year.

Person B has an income of 115,000 dollars a year.

We assume that both person A and B have good credit historys (no missed payments for either)

Person A has a take home after taxes and medical benefits of $2000 per month. They have monthly bills excluding their rent of 900 (car lease, auto insurance, iphone plan, cable, broad band, cc minimum payments). It is logical to assume they will spend an additional 300-500/month on food/gas/entertainment. This means that 60-70% of their income is already accounted for. In a perfect world that leaves them able to pay ~600/month on a loan. Meaning that person A could not reliably afford a $100,000 30 year mortgage at 0% interest with 0 down, and in additional expense would lead to foreclosure. Risk factor - To high to bother

Person B has a take home after taxes and medical benefits of $7400 per month. They have monthly bills excluding their rent of 1000 (car loan, auto ins, iphone plan, cable, broad band, cc minimum payments, gym) Its logical to assume they will spend an additional 900-1100/month on food/gar/entertainment. This means that 26-28% of their income is accounted for. In a perfect world that leaves them able to pay ~5300/month on a loan. Meaning that person A could affoard a $500,000 30 year mortgage at 5% interest with 0 down, and have a good sized monthly buffer to cover additional expenses. Risk factor - Not that bad.

So as you can see with this example that uses logic and reasoning we can prove its obviously more risky to loan person A 100,000 then to loan person B 500,000.

8/22/2010 12:21:05 PM

Quote :

"Can we just ban the resident idiot whore? I read shit like this and I can feel the pressure in my cranium rise as my head is attempting to explode"

I'd rather that we ALL ignore her. I don't mind playing with her in this thread, because it's hers and it's fundamentally laughable. I recommend to not pay her any attention in any other threads, though.

Quote :

"The other option is getting foreclosed. This is like a rescue team finding a stranded crew in the ocean and rescuing them under the condition of slavery. "

Right, so it's a good thing that people are out there who are willing to buy from people willing to sell at distressed prices--otherwise they'd REALLY be fucked.

and no, it's not like that at all--there's no better option for handling houses with unpaid mortgages.

and a better analogy would be for the stranded crew to be forced to pay for the cost of their rescue, which is exactly what happens in many cases where the people in distress stupidly and voluntarily put themselves in a bad situation.

Quote :

"How much per week did you have to spend on medicine at the time?"

Irrelevent. That statement was to illustrate that you can get a good interest rate with a very meager income, as long as you have a history of financial responsibility (not to illustrate that poor people can all go buy crotch rockets).

Quote :

"Also, petty credit shouldn't be looked at for things like automobiles or especially houses. When I reform credit theres a lot of things I would change but the first thing on my list would be separating the different types of credit. Consumer credit would be affected by all but automobile credit would only be affected by mortgage/rent credit and mortgage credit would not be affected by anything below it"

Tell you what...if you are loaning your money, by all means set whatever terms you want.

Even if you think it's morally OK to tell other people how to loan their money to that extent, you cannot do it. They just won't loan the money.

Quote :

"Personal finance won't teach people how to overcome making less than what it costs them to live"

This goes back to what truly constitutes a "need". You can live within your means even at a meager income...you just can't live like someone make twice the income (who's likely also swimming in debt to live ABOVE his means).

Furthermore, if you're middle aged and making minimum wage, that's your own fucking fault.

Quote :

"There should be a mandatory remodification period of 1-2 years before foreclosure can even be thought about. During this period, the persons income and expenses are calculated into a new payment that they can afford. The loan term is extended. 60 year loan anyone?"

There won't be any loans if those are the terms. You'd be a fucking idiot to invest your money in that way. The only way anyone would lend would be at astronomical interest rates, and even then, I think you'd be hard pressed to find many willing to lend the amounts you'd need for a house.

Quote :

"This is a whole nother thread but making all the poor people live in the same area is a bad idea for everyone anyway. Instead they should be spread out so that they lose the "poor" stigma and all the disadvantages that come with living in a dense area of poor people."

How do you plan to do that? There isn't any room for them in my garage.

Quote :

"Let income level and principle determine interest rate in the opposite way it does today. If I'm borrowing 100k its obviously less of a risk the lending 500k to someone else. "

You fucking idiot, there are people who have the sole professional purpose of determining what risks different profiles represent (on average, which is all that matters to a lender, insurer, etc).

Risk is exactly what sets mortgage interest rates.

Quote :

"Not nearly as much as the first world nations."

hahaha, does everyone see this gem?

Quote :

"Because some people have a materialistic love for vehicles and buy 5 of them,"

I plan on picking up 1 more BMW motorcycle, a half-share of an airplane, and a speedboat once I get settled in a stable location in a year or two.

8/22/2010 10:17:55 PM

Quote :

"So as you can see with this example that uses logic and reasoning"

No, dude, you misunderstand. That is exactly what precludes her from seeing it.



Ohh, but mambagrl, it goes so far beyond cars and motorcycles. I thought you might like to see a visual depiction of my toy plan, to be executed as soon as it becomes clear that I won't be deploying again anytime soon (so I'll probably start acquiring in the next 6-18 months).

(it ain't trollin' because it's true.)



Plan to sell the S2000 and buy a 911...gotta have something family oriented...you know, with backseats



currently restoring a '66 chevy that dad's dad bought new in '66...I leaned to drive on it when I was a kid.



Sell SV650, buy dedicated race-replica type motorcycle strictly as a toy, for backroads on the weekends, and especially for track days.



I'll keep my current BMW. Mom's dad sold it new from his dealership in '83.



I do want a more modern BMW to ride as quasi-daily transportation, and to take 2-up trips, or to handle some off-road adventure riding.




I'll be living near the beach in FL, so I'm gonna "need" a boat.



With an 80 mph speedboat, I don't really have as much use for a heavy-metal hot-rod Waverunner, so I'll sell that and probably buy a smallish, older stand-up type ski.




Won't buy this outright. In the name of efficiency, I plan on going in with one or two co-owners (commonly done with airplanes).

Other toys I like and have multiple examples of that I can't use all at one time:

Guns:


Got one. Going to keep it.



Got one. Going to keep it.



Want one. Will probably buy. It's a Saiga 12...and AK47-based semiauto 12-gauge shotgun. I want one with a wood foregrip, folding stock, and red-dot sight, though.



Want one. Will probably buy. Ruger TCP with integrated laser. Tiny, tiny pistol for pocket carry.


I'd never bet against me picking up another SIG pistol, or building/buying an AR15 or highly accurized long-distance rifle...especially if there's a 1000m range and opportunity for competition nearby when I move back to FL.

Guitars and amps:



First really nice guitar I bought...prob keep it forever.



Currently have a purple Stratocaster, but I'll probably sell it and buy a Telecaster, natural finish like The Boss.



Gretcsh Corvette, mid-60s model. Inherited from my great uncle, and will keep forever.



Fender acoustic. Got it, will keep it.




Also, mambagrl, you'll be pleased to know that in addition to my 4 guitars, I have 3 amplifiers, only one of which I ever play at any one time. I'll spare you the pictures, because I'm tired of searching google images, and they all pretty much look like guitar amps.


but you see, every single one of these things is used for different things. There is no duplicity of effort--only specialization.




[Edited on August 22, 2010 at 11:13 PM. Reason : I only have 1 TV, 1 saxophone, and 1 pair of skis, though. I do have 2 computers, though.]



[Edited on August 22, 2010 at 11:27 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on August 22, 2010 at 11:28 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on August 22, 2010 at 11:31 PM. Reason : ]

8/22/2010 10:19:01 PM

I know the definition of first world nation isn't clear but I'm using the top ten in newsweek's best countries in the world list that just came out last week.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/15/interactive-infographic-of-the-worlds-best-countries.html

8/23/2010 8:46:10 AM

No, the definition of "First World Nation" is quite clear, it just has nothing to do with newsweek.

8/23/2010 10:12:50 AM

Clear definition or not, one thing that is obviously not even remotely up for debate is that the United States is a first-world nation.

8/23/2010 10:51:47 AM

Well let me choose my words more carefully then. (some word meaning "best quality of life") nations

[Edited on August 23, 2010 at 11:40 AM. Reason : you're right]

8/23/2010 11:39:46 AM

The United States is also a best quality of life nation. I guess you have given up on your original point?

8/23/2010 12:39:46 PM

fuck, now we're gonna have to hear (again) about the categories in which a few Scandinavian countries are rated higher than us.

That's all on average, though...I'd rather stay here, with a greater disparity between the haves and have-nots, so that I can more fully enjoy the fruits of my labor. Plus, it's not so fucking cold.

8/23/2010 1:28:45 PM

so seeing people starving and dying when you drive home is what helps you enjoy the fruits of your labor?

because average income is lower here too.

8/23/2010 1:34:38 PM

Quote :

"so seeing people starving and dying when you drive home is what helps you enjoy the fruits of your labor? "

I don't see anyone starving and dying when I drive home. I do see a couple of guys that have been standing on the street corner forever. And while they appear to be destitute, I do notice they have been there for many years, and so must be making enough to survive (certainly not starving). From time to time I see them with a dog, clearly capable of supporting said dog (not that I would begrudge a man his dog, but I do note that they did not have the dog previously, and now do).

I also notice that they stand on a corner not 50' from a waffle house which is currently hiring. And I happened to be in there the other day, and noted some information about working there:

They pay you every week, in cash.
They offer health insurance.
They offer 2 weeks paid vacation.
They pay you $6-$12 / hour plus tips

Now, I'm no expert, but I do know you can live on $6-$12 / hour and not be starving and dying.

8/23/2010 2:24:09 PM

Quote :

"so seeing people starving and dying when you drive home "

What country are you talking about? Our poor are obese in this country

8/23/2010 3:17:54 PM

In part, thanks to heavy corn subsidies.

[Edited on August 23, 2010 at 3:43 PM. Reason : .]

8/23/2010 3:43:35 PM

^^ To be fair, this is the same girl who berates the many wealthy people dining at the Golden Corral:

Quote :

"O, America, lets poison our people who actually have money by overfeeding them and then proceed to throw away leftovers while millions starve."

8/23/2010 7:28:19 PM

I currently have 1 desktop and 2 laptops in my room right now. I also have another desktop sitting in my storage closet down teh hall. I decided that one monitor was not enough to my main desktop has 2 monitors. My roommates 30" TV was not adequate for football so I went online and purchased a $1250 40" LED TV. Of course a new TV NEEDED a new 5.1 Sony Surround Sound system w/ built-in blu ray player. In order to put all my new electronics to good use, HHGregg hooked me up with a black glass entertainment center. So blow me mambagrl

Lets not forget either that Belks had a good special on Ralph Lauren Polo's so I added an orange and new green w/ white stripes collared shirt to my already full closet of RL gear

[Edited on August 23, 2010 at 7:56 PM. Reason : l]

8/23/2010 7:56:06 PM

Flaunting your possessions in a troll thread

keepin it classy

8/23/2010 10:10:25 PM

i mean, i get where they're all coming from. i work hard for my money, and i can spend it however i damn well please.


but i've been broke and homeless before too, so i try to give back a little to those in need, because i know what it's like to have nothing. on the other hand, i'm not trying to support every damn body else so i'm gonna go ahead and spend my extra money on new, high-quality bass strings because they feel good on the fingers and sound good in my ears.

if anyone has a problem with that, they can go kick rocks. this is America, i spend how i want and i build my mosques where i want.

8/23/2010 10:21:28 PM

^^ no, no no...you have it backwards. It's trolling the flaunter of stupid threads.

^ Goddamn right.

8/23/2010 10:50:48 PM

HUR I have the same thing and I know I have too much. I do feel its a need to keep up with sports and pop culture to build rapport with my students though. A top of the line system makes watching anything palatable.

I've already said its having more than one that pisses me off. People can buy what they like. I'm not a communist(although thats not a bad thing to be). I'm just a realist.

Quote :

" To be fair, this is the same girl who berates the many wealthy people dining at the Golden Corral:"

no not wealthy people. people who have just enough money to not worry how their next meal will be funded get to eat the cheap garbage our society throws out there. its basically poison and the same people end up falling into diabetes at which point they can't make ends meet anymore.

Quote :

"I also notice that they stand on a corner not 50' from a waffle house which is currently hiring. And I happened to be in there the other day, and noted some information about working there: They pay you every week, in cash. They offer health insurance. They offer 2 weeks paid vacation. They pay you $6-$12 / hour plus tips Now, I'm no expert, but I do know you can live on $6-$12 / hour and not be starving and dying. "

because places are so desperate to hire people right now they will hire anyone who walks in the door regardless if they have an address, experience, or smell nice TO SERVE FOOD. I'm sure bums anywhere could walk into restaurants and be hired on the spot...

I know a biology grad that applied to chick fil a (they were hiring) and she still hasn't been called back.

8/24/2010 7:38:42 AM

Quote :

"I'm just a realist."

Which means what? I presented the argument, someone owning more than they need does not deprive anyone else of anything. If they did not buy the "too much stuff" then it would not have been produced at all, society would just have less stuff, it wouldn't be distributed any fairer. As such, your realist talk is bullshit. If you want to help the poor, then help the poor, berate people into helping the poor. Berating them for owning two stereo systems does nothing helpful for anyone, especially not the poor.

8/24/2010 7:49:36 AM

students, holy dog balls batman, where do you teach i need to make sure i don't live near that district.

and yes, communist = bad. Shit DOES NOT WORK on any kind of scale if actual real live human beings are involved.

8/24/2010 8:36:49 AM

Quote :

"To be fair, this is the same girl who berates the many wealthy people dining at the Golden Corral"

Quote :

"no not wealthy people. people who have just enough money to not worry how their next meal will be funded get to eat the cheap garbage our society throws out there. its basically poison and the same people end up falling into diabetes at which point they can't make ends meet anymore. "

I think the issue of Golden Corral and of wealth people "hoarding unnecessary" gear/items, are two totally seperate issues.
Obese gluttonnous lazy americans who stuff their pie-holes at the $9.99 all you can eat buffet, makes me want to puke.
If anything this behavior is usually inversely proportional to wealth.

8/24/2010 9:08:37 AM

Quote :

"Flaunting your possessions in a troll thread keepin it classy"

8/24/2010 9:46:09 AM

Quote :

"I know a biology grad that applied to chick fil a (they were hiring) and she still hasn't been called back."

Did she put the fact that she has a college degree on her application? Oops. Maybe they don't want someone who is just going to be looking for a better job and maybe gone in a month. And since they have a wealth of applicants, they can be picky.

8/24/2010 9:56:48 AM