O.T. Next financial bubble to burst.

Page 3 of 3  
" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8

Crazy-ass federal or state policies like this simply don't happen in Canada, for any type of consumer product or service. Including mortgages.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They probably can't do it because of low population. (grin).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Noahbuddy wrote:

Believe that - if it helps you cope with reality.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not only clueless, but a damned liar, as well.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why don't you quote and reference, harry? Are you too afraid everyone will see what a fool you are? Too late.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Home Guy wrote:

Mexico will continue to deteriorate due to it's epidemic level corruption. US made guns have nothing to do with it, the cartels causing trouble there have plenty of other sources of guns, and indeed the media tries to play up US guns being smuggled into Mexico when the reality is they represent a small percentage of the cartel's guns.

Again, the media you are watching presents a very distorted picture. The majority of people in the US are not in any way worrying about terrorism, they are going about their lives perfectly normally. I certainly have not been concerned with terrorism personally at all and it has no impact on my daily life. I am normally "aware" of my surroundings, but that is common sense, not anything related to terrorism. I wasn't even concerned about terrorism when I spend a couple weeks in Egypt back in 2008, though I was amused by the government (Egypt) provided security escort with the MP5.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Pete C." wrote:

You know that De Nile is not just a river in Egypt, right?

Yes. ABC, NBC, and CBS does present a distorted picture. It's a picture seen through a rose-colored lens, because they are loath to put bad news on their newscasts because it turns off the viewers. That's why they load their broadcasts up with feel-good stories near the end of their shows.

I suppose that's why they're always oh so glad and approving to take off their shoes and have naked-body xray imaging performed on them at airports.
I suppose they're happy and approve of the video messages being shown inside their local Walmart stores.
http://www.examiner.com/homeland-security-in-chicago
Homeland Security shuts down web domains - VIDEO Homeland Security visits elementary school Feds spotted using mobile x-ray technology twice this week Homegrown terrorists using the Internet as WMD Chicago ranked in the top three cities when it comes to preparedness Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano addressed her employees State budget shortfalls provoke diverse responses House subcommittee passes $315 million drinking water safety bill
--------------------------- Walmart to help Govt fight against terrorism
HOUSTON: The US Department of Homeland Security is in partnership with Americas multinational corporation WalMart to fight against terrorism.
In a campaign If you see something, say something, Walmarts 588 stores within in a month will show a video message at various counters featuring the US DHS Department Secretary, Mr Janet Napolitano, encouraging customers to report suspicious activity.
Use of public is a simple, powerful tool, Mr Napolitano said in a conference call.
However, a Chambersburg Walmart is the only Pennsylvania store equipped with checkout videos, the company spokesman, Mr Dan Fogleman said.
Were proud to be the first national retail partner, he said. Walmart to help Govt fight against terrorism -------------------------
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40552073/ns/us_news-security /
Security is your new religion.
Always constantly proving that you're not a threat to law enforcement agencies, or fellow citizens, or even to your kid's grade-school teachers is now your new patriotic duty. Be it at an airport, a road-side alcohol check, or to other shoppers at Walmart.
Trust has been engineered out of your society, replaced by suspicion. The personality of your very country is being stolen from you, with every "Homeland Security" department and every "Anti-Terrorism Czar" that you create.

You mean that you don't have a supply of duct tape and plastic wrap - enough to wrap your house and seal it up in case someone detonates a dirty nuclear or biological bomb nearby?
So you're not personally affected by the tax increases and/or reductions to municiple services that come from all the extra spending on anti-terrorism programs?
Do you live in a state that requires a finger-print to get your drivers license? What a strange concept - we don't have that here in Canada...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Home Guy wrote:

You do know that the truth is not seen in the media?

I have plenty of duct tape and plastic, along with all the rest of the odds and ends normally found in a well stocked and equipped workshop. Nothing specific to NBC attacks.

I utilize virtually no "municipal services" and as far as I'm concerned the less I spend on such things the better. As for taxes, I've not seen any notable increases in taxes, I pay plenty of taxes as it is. The AMT "fix" is still far away from "fixing" it for me.

Both states I have CHLs from required fingerprints for them, why would I care about drivers licenses?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Clueless.
Laughably clueless.

Like there is a choice? Wanna go to jail?

That's our stupid government, thanks to Obama, *NOT* the population at large. <snip>

No.
Nope. The lights are still on and the garbage was collected today. ..and they managed to send us the bill for it all this month.

You don't see very well up there either.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
harry wrote:

You simply do not understand basic economics. The rich may, individually, have enormously more than an single "worker," but there are relatively few super-rich and almost uncountably many plebeians. If the government takes, say, 50% of the rich folks' assets, the government will have a substantial sum.
But if the government takes only one percent from the downtrodden, the government will have incredibly more than had they pillaged the rich. And without the grief the rich can visit upon the heads of the factotums.
Plus, the rich are not stupid. When Clinton levied a 10% surtax on yachts costing more than $500,000, the rich simply bought their boats in the Bahamas. (And put hundreds of American shipwrights out of work.) Even today, John Kerry is berthing his yacht in Rhode Island to escape the enormous tax in his home state of Massachusetts.
Point is, if the government tries to soak the rich, the rich respond - usually to the detriment of not only the tax collectors but of the workers the rich employ.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's 20% here. Not a lot of difference.

There aren't all that many here either, OTOH, it doesn't take that many to drag the market under when it does turn South (that fractional reserve can be a bitch).

No, your folks buy their second homes in Nevada, Florida, and Arizona. ;-)

I don't see this as having anything to do with "bubbles", or much of anything else.

*THERE* is the problem. Congress screwed the pooch on that one!

How is that automatically "over-valued"?

Nonsense. Their self-destruction is completely self-induced. It's been a thugocracy for decades.

So you're saying that you would never submit to chemotherapy? How many people are harmed by drugs? How many more would be were drugs legal?

Clueless.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Than join US! The only reason Candia does not go first is because they expect US recourses, and the Navy there is behind 20+ YEARS COMPARED TO US SHIP/SUBS.
Yeah, we already tested the Canadian response. They go in with few and end up leaving. The US has a different approach... complete destruction of the enemy recourses, leaving no RADAR or satellite evidence. The US military is single-handedly go into a known infested area and cleared it in minutes
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"G. Morgan" wrote:

No thanks.

Oh brother. There are always bone-heads like you that think that Canada has all these advantages because we leech off the "protection" of the US military. That we are in a better fiscal position because we don't spend billions on our military because we can avail ourselves of US military protection.
The truth is that the US military has and always will be more of a threat to Canada than a support or an asset.

We don't participate in illegal invasions and occupations like you did in Iraq. In Iraq, you performed a political assasination by calling it a war. You have no shame.

Yes - you lie to yourselves and the world because it makes you feel better when you commit war crimes and crimes against humanity in the name of reaching your own twisted geo-political goals.

Then what's taking you so long to wage your "war" in Iraq and Afhanistan?
How many minutes are there in 8 years?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
harry wrote:

Very few guns are "designed" to kill people. That said, you are arguing from a false premise: there are many people that NEED killing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Clueless, as always. There are *many* target pistols, designed specifically to shoot paper.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
harry wrote:

* Self defense * Historical artifact * Sport shooting * Investment * Collecting * Disturbing the anti-gun fools * Art * Settling political disputes (i.e., a sitting Vice President killing the former Secretary of the Treasury)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
harry wrote:

Sure.
A "serious threat to take life" is in the eye of the beholder. For example, a finger poked against a jacket pocket is an ARMED robbery simply because the victim THOUGHT the assailant had a gun.
Whether that threat will ultimately pass the "reasonable man" test is another matter.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wonderfully accurate discussion about why we have such a mess in America with home mortgages, and so why can't the American press articulate the problem as well as the posters on this discussion thread?
Also, it was Alan Greenspan who during the bubble period actually publiclly stated that consumers should be getting ARM loans and not fixed rate loans. When he said that, I was absolutely stunned.
One item that is missing in this discussion is that the real estate bubble in the United States started in 1997. That being the Tax Relief Act of 1997. If you study home prices in many U.S. markets, you will see prices begin to take off starting in 1998, that was due to the Tax Relief Act of 1997. And so home prices in the United States should be at their 1997/1998 levels to be relatively "normal", and so when you hear the "real estate experts" say a market is cheap, compare that market's prices to their 1998 prices, and if they are still above their 1998 prices then that market is still overpriced. You will often hear folks say it should be at 1999 prices, and this is how many of those folks pick the year "1999", they know about the Tax Relief Act of 1997.
IMHO, we need to stop the damage caused by the Tax Relief Act of 1997 ASAP. Most of us are now paying more for our homes because of the Tax Relief Act of 1997. It has created a generation that buys homes to resell them within a few years to get the tax free income. Ive seen guys buy multiple homes, rent all but one of them, and then they rotate thru the homes as their principal residence, staying in each them for 2 years, selling it, taking the profit, and then move into one of their remaining rentals, sell that after 2 years, and keep the cycle going by buying more homes and churning thru existing homes. Ive seen many people do this, sometimes with just one home at a time, and other times at the other extreme where they queued up multiple homes at once. When things fell apart in 2008, I knew one woman who was maybe 25, probably should have been making $50K or so at a decent job, but instead she went to work for an Los Angeles mortgage company, purchased 6 homes in LA... she was so overextended that when she couldn't rent one of them, the entire mess came crashing down on her, and that caused at least $1 million in mortgage losses from just one person who was engaging in this destructive speculation. The same destructive speculation that was also causing those of us who just wanted to buy a home to live in to have to pay 2x to 3x what we would have paid for it if the Tax Relief Act of 1997 never existed.
Below is summary of what the Tax Relief Act of 1997 did.
..."Starting in 1997, what's the best tax break available to Jane and John Q. Public? If they're homeowners, it's selling their house.
Homeowners already know the many tax breaks that Uncle Sam offers, most notably mortgage interest and property tax deductions. Well, he also has good tax news for home sellers: Most of them won't owe the Internal Revenue Service a single dime.
When you sell your primary residence, you can make up to $250,000 in profit if you're a single owner, twice that if you're married, and not owe any capital gains taxes.
"Most people are not going to have a tax obligation unless their gain is huge," says Bob Trinz, a senior tax analyst at RIA, which provides tax information and software to tax professionals.
Some sellers are surprised by this break, especially if they've been in their homes for a while. That's because before May 7, 1997, the only way you could avoid paying taxes on your home-sale profit was to use the money to buy another, more-expensive house within two years. Sellers age 55 or older had one other option. They could take a once- in-a-lifetime tax exemption of up to $125,000 in profits. And in all instances, there was tax paperwork (Form 2119) to fill out to show that you followed the rules.
But when the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 became law, the home-sale tax burden eased for millions of residential taxpayers. The rollover or once-in-a-lifetime options were replaced with the current per-sale exclusion amounts.
"There is some logic to this law change because most people under the prior rules didn't recognize a taxable gain because they rolled it over into another residence," says Trinz. "The change essentially makes it easier to dispose of your residence." Still some requirements to meet
If you used pre-1997 rules for residential sales, don't worry. That doesn't disqualify you from claiming the exclusion on any residential sales now. The law change applies to all sales since it took effect.
Another bonus of the new rules: You don't have to buy another home with your sale proceeds. You can use the money to travel to Europe in style, buy an RV and drive across the country or get all those designer shoes you never could afford before. Even better, there's no limit on the number of times you can use the home-sale exemption. In most cases, you can make tax-free profits of $250,000 (or $500,000 depending on your filing status) every time you sell a home.
Ah, but we are talking taxes here. You did notice that phrase "in most cases," didn't you? There's always a catch. Before you put a "For Sale" sign in the yard, you need to make sure your house-sale situation is one of those "most cases."
First, the property you're selling must be your principal residence. That means you live in it. This tax break doesn't apply to a house or other property that you have solely for investment purposes. In those cases, the usual capital gains rules apply.
You can, however, turn a rental house into your primary residence, making the sale of it eligible for the exclusion. This is accomplished when you meet the IRS use and ownership tests: You own and live in the home for two out of the five years before the sale."...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Congress to help the deficit is talking or ending all the tax deductions on home ownership, including the mortage interest deduction.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

[...]
Why stunned? Anything that comes out of a Libertarian's mouth is by definition untrustworthy.
Remember how shocked, shocked! Greenspan was, publicly, at the financial collapse. The markets weren't working as he believed they should have. Tfui! BTW, ever saw a black or poor Liberatarian?
HB

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.