Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Dec 2006 08:54 In article <el4g4q$l1v$4(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <el45om$8qk_001(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <1165332870.593782.314710(a)f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >> |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> In article <4572475E.BA56AF16(a)hotmail.com>, >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> > >>>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >> >I rather doubt that it does happen all the time in the USA. I suspect >>it's >>>> >> > just another of your fanciful folksy notions. >>>> >> >>>> >> Nope. It's fact. >>>> > >>>> >I still don't believe you. Your 'facts' have been rather fanciful to >date. >>> >>>> All of my brothers and sisters bought their own home before they >>>> got legal (21). They were on their second or third car. They >>>> worked and supported themselves. All of my relatives on my mother's >>>> side had some kind farm business before they were legal. >>> >>>Even allowing for ultra-cheap tacky portacabin / garden sheds that some >>>USians call homes how exactly did they do it? >> >>None of my brothers would have been caught dead in >>a porta cabin. >> >>> The numbers just don't seem to stack up. >> >>They did it. Two incomes and paying off the loans first before >>buying junk is how they did it. Both my brothers built their >>houses. 50% or more of the work was done by their hands and >>not by hiring out. >> >>> >>>In most first world countries >> >>I thought we were talking about poor? >> >>>a basic starter home costs somewhere >>>between 5 and 20x median annual salary. >> >>If it's 20x, that means that the principle is about 10x. > >No, he means the purchase price. Oh, I see. So the loan is going to be triple that which is 15 and 60x annual salary. For somebody starting out, I'd say find a cheaper place to get started. > That's true around here -- the average home >price in the Atlanta area is $156,000. That's 3 times the median income. In >the LA area, it's around 9 times. Boston, 6 x. Yes. Large cities are not the place to start out. So you, as a young dewy-eyed adult, do not start out in the most expensive cities. You start out in a suburb or a countryside. After a decade, you can move up. That's how it's done. You get really rich on your balance sheet if you never move. > >>That's takes 10 years to pay off loan and you own the >>house and property free and clear. > >What? Nobody making around or below the median income can pay off an average >mortgage in 10 years. Yes they can. You just don't spend money on anything else. > >> >>> And more still in truly >>>expensive hotspots like Tokyo or Hong Kong. >>> >>>I guess things are a bit cheaper in Outer Hicksville but what are the >>>numbers? >> >>You people keep assuming that only one person buys the house; only >>one person pays for the house; and that only the most expensive >>housing is bought. >> > >There're a lot of single parent families, you know. Oh, now we are talking about people who don't plan and do things bassackwards. Now we're getting to misogynous assumptions of those Liberals you like to parrot. > And I was using the >average home price, above. So two single-headed families can pool their resources if they have to live in such an expensive place. > >>> >>>> None were rich. None were even middle class. Most were poor. >>> >>>This appears to be yet another of your folksy fairy tales. You cannot >>>be poor and buy a house - in the UK at least in the 80's the banks >>>would not even look at you for a home loan unless you had at least a 5% >>>deposit to put down. >> >>How does anybody get that 5% down payment (if you intend to borrow >>to buy)? > >How indeed? The mortgage industry is luring people who can't afford it, with >interest-only loans, no down payments, etc. That's why defaults are up. Defaults are up because people buy things that are too expensive for them. Or they are members of that population (which is increasing) who assume everything should be free and it is their right to buy everything they want even if they don't the money. > >> >>> You can be cash poor after buying a house though >>>and finding all the things that urgently need doing to make it >>>habitable. >> >>sure. But you aren't poor and all your "rent" is going into >>your real estate pocket. I didn't buy a house until I was >>told my rent was going up. So I went out and bought a house >>where the monthly payments were less than my current rent. > >I betr you saved up for a down payment though. So? That's how you do this buying your house biz if you are going to take out a loan. You can also take out a loan that includes the down payment. Is it now a sin to save for the down payment? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Dec 2006 08:58 In article <4576CCA8.DC3D47DC(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> > >> >Ever hear of the "peace dividend"? We weren't fighting the cold war anymore. >> >> And you swallowed the sound byte hook, line, and sinker. > >That's sound bite btw. I'm amused how it's been corrupted so quickly. It is "byte" if all you do is rely on Google for your facts. > > >> The cold war didn't just stop. > >Well actually, yes it did. Aside from N Korea I suppose. Afghanistan and the Taliban was caused by cold war skirmishes. Somalia is a cold war side effect. Egypt was one. Iran seems to be still playing with Cold War rules. And everybody seems to forget about southeast Asia, India and China. /BAH > > >> There will be side effects for >> a hundred years. The war we're fighting now is leftovers >> from WWI and WWII that were put off for later. > >Not really. Do elaborate if you can. > >Graham >
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Dec 2006 03:33 In article <50e5a$45761c13$4fe7071$17312(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Lloyd Parker wrote: >> In article <el43co$g14$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> >>>In article <el278i$6qf$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>>Lloyd Parker <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote: >>> >>>>In article <91fba$457234e0$4fe757d$18623(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> >>>[....] >>> >>>>>Looks like you add ~1.067 billion to medicare expenditures as the >>>>>collections expense. That adds about 0.4% to the overhead which >>>>>is usually reported elsewhere. That increases their reported >>>>>expenses by more than 10%. >>>> >>>>What? You're claiming 10% of the entire IRS budget goes to Medicare tax >>>>collection? Absurd! It comes in electronically. >>> >>>He is suggesting that we spread the overhead over the monies collected. >>>This is not an unreasonable thing to do. I doubt it makes enough >>>difference to matter though. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> Why not accept the figure that's been published? Take all the money Medicare >> pays and figure administrative expenses as a % of this. That's how it's done >> for private insurance companies. That way things like advertising isn't >> included, as you're not looking at money coming in but money paid out. > >Because in the case of the insurance company all the functions are >under one roof and come out of one pocket, ir one cost center. In >the case of Medicare collections is performed by a completely >different cost center, publications by another, and so on. > >You really need to get a handle on standard accounting procedures >*before* you get involved in this discussion. > Divide money paid to people by money paid. It's a simple calculation. For Medicare, it's 96%, far more than private insurance companies. We're not talking about collection costs, advertising, agent commissions, any of that.
From: Eeyore on 6 Dec 2006 09:06 vjp2.at(a)at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote: > Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. national security adviser.. on > "Political Capital with Al Hunt," to air on Bloomberg Television.. Asked > whether the U.S. should have to accept the reality of the Iranians obtaining > nuclear weapons, he said, "I'm not entirely convinced they are really seeking > them." The Iranian leadership is "seeking a comprehensive nuclear program" > that would put the country in a position to produce nuclear weapons, > Brzezinski said. [jmathewson(a)bloomberg.net November 24, 2006] I suspect that's quite an accurate analysis. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Dec 2006 09:12
In article <el6gso$r3s$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <9857e$45761fc1$4fe7071$17377(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: <snip> >>> How indeed? The mortgage industry is luring people who can't afford it, >with >>> interest-only loans, no down payments, etc. That's why defaults are up. >> >>That's not the main reason. Check those default folks' other >>financial arrangements to discover how badly they're >>mismanaging *everything.* > >A lot are people who've lost their jobs due to illness or the company >downsizing or outsourcing. Why are you allowed to give third information as fact and we can't? /BAH |