Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 13 Dec 2006 20:11 Lloyd Parker wrote: snip > > Yeah, budget surpluses, no war, no invasions, record economic boom -- yeah, > those were the bad old years all right. > > You right-wingers are so pathetic. If Bush confessed to pedophilia and > devil-worship, you'd find a way to blame it on Clinton. You're so far over the top there's no recovery available for a jackass like you. Go away now.
From: unsettled on 13 Dec 2006 20:26 T Wake wrote: > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message > news:el99de$qc5$3(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... > >>In article <el6j44$8qk_001(a)s867.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>In article <el6gso$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 >> >>From ajc.com: >> >>"Phillip Newman is a mechanical designer. He bought a home in Lithonia two >>years ago, obtaining a mortgage that required a monthly payment of $1,260. >> >>Four months later, his company was purchased and his job eliminated. >> >>He was out of work for five months, then found a one-year contract job. >>When >>that ended, he scrambled for three months and in July found his current >>position - where he makes about 25 percent less than he had as a >>consultant. >>He fell way behind in his mortgage payments and was scheduled for >>foreclosure >>in October. He says he cut spending: He has no cable television, no >>cellphone, >>no Internet connection." >> >>"In some ways, it's the same as always: People lose a paycheck or hit a >>sudden >>expense, Hunt said. But it's different, too. Millions of home buyers are >>just >>coping with their first big jump in mortgage rates." > > > I suspect /BAH's response (and maybe some of the sycophants) will be along > the lines of he bought in too "ritzy" a neighbourhood. Mine is simpler yet. Hows does $1260 actually compare to a low end rental within commuting distance. An individual who doesn't go through significant financial planning, while investigating all available alternatives in order to arrive at the best possible outcome regardless of the eventual combination of variables, is a fool who deserves to lose out. It is possible, though not probably, that the example case did all his homework ahead of time and still lost out in the end. That can happen, but far less likely when att the i's are ditted and all the t's are crossed. In this day and age one has to make a worse case scenario assumption that the employer will be bought up, combined, and one will experience a significant decrease in income. But then I lived through the 1960's and 1970's and saw massive layoffs all over the place. I would never place myself in a situation where a stroke of someone's pen could destroy me financially, but so many continue to do exactly that. Empathy has its limits. > He should have been happy to live in a yurt, tend his cattle and grow his > own vegetables and make his own clothes. Everything else is attached to the > despised middle class. > > As /BAH appears to promote rampant capitalism, her Marxist leanings are > amusing. > >
From: Eeyore on 13 Dec 2006 20:40 unsettled wrote: > Lloyd Parker wrote: > > > > Yeah, budget surpluses, no war, no invasions, record economic boom -- yeah, > > those were the bad old years all right. > > > > You right-wingers are so pathetic. If Bush confessed to pedophilia and > > devil-worship, you'd find a way to blame it on Clinton. > > You're so far over the top there's no recovery available > for a jackass like you. Where's your sense of humour ? Mind you..... Graham
From: unsettled on 13 Dec 2006 21:00 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:45789446.A41A58B4(a)hotmail.com... > >> >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message >>> >>>>And that shows he's (a) dumb as a fence post; (b) out of touch with >>>>reality; >>>>(c) both (a) and (b). >>> >>>I vote she is C. >>> >>> >>>>>You've been trying all along to move the damn goalposts. >>>> >>>>I've been trying to tell you right-wing zealots you don't know what >>>>you're >>>>talking about. "Poor" to you seems to mean playing golf at a public >>>>course instead of a private one. >>> >>>Yes, generally speaking _if_ you can buy your own house you certainly are >>>not poor. >> >>It may make you 'poor' though in terms of what you can then afford ! > > > Then we fall into the debate of what is "poor." The term is often used > (sometimes interchangeably with "poverty") to mean a relative level of > spending power. I am not sure if this is how I would use the term and to be > honest, I am not sure if I would be able to define poor at short notice. Where I live there are many "poor" homeowners. Lots are subsidized by government grants to the poor to assist with their housing and food and medical costs. It is cheaper, in the end, for the government to leave them in the location/housing they're in than to force a foreclosure and pay the presently existing rental rates in the region. Most are elderly and/or ill. About 20% of all households are comprised of a single individual over 65 years of age. The per capita income for the county as a whole is a little over $16,000US. > My feelings are that if you can afford to buy a house, you are not poor. You > have resolved one of the basic needs (shelter) and given that house prices > will invariably rise over time you have an investment. You probably have > managed to save up around �5k for a deposit which means you really are not > poor. If you look at some sort of generic case of an individual who grew up in suburbia and have a specific storyline to go along with that then in the narrow sense of the scenario you're probably right. Then again, a clever individual can (as has occasionally been done) acquire a property through adverse posession or perhaps at a tax sale. The city near me owns a number of properties they ended up with as owners because the buildings were derelict and dangerous and abandoned. Often they experienced a fire, and essentially nobody wanted them. I know of one that was sold by the state for a few hundred dollars and again abandoned by the buyer when they realized how rough the property was. Now that the buildings have been torn down by the city (at city expense) the land is available for a song (how does $2500 for a half acre city lot with water, sewer, gas, electric, cable, and telephone sound?) Interestingly one can legally install a house trailer on the lot. Even more interestingly such house trailers, in usable condition, are frequently given away for the cost of transport. Families who lived in them for a few decades finally build a regular house on their lot and *must* get rid of the trailer in order to occupy the house. It is easy, in this environment, to end up a mortgage free homeowner with only a few thousand US$ cash in hand, and still be poor. For God's sakes we're talking about being a homeowner for the cost of an inexpensive car. > Obviously if you go with out food, clothing, heat, transport etc to afford > the house you are still poor (and will die soon - hunger if nothing else > :-) ) and really shouldnt have bought the house. Not always. >>>As for moving the goalposts - blimey. As they move with ever post /BAH >>>makes >>>how can *anyone* know where they are supposed to be? >>I reckon a pincer action is needed. > I think an octopus would have a hard time keeping up. I threw you a visable local scenario as an example, not as "the example." There are a lot of possibilities. As you quite fairly note, the definition of "poor" isn't a simple thing.
From: unsettled on 13 Dec 2006 21:03
JoeBloe wrote: > On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 06:25:37 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" > <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> Gave us: > > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>Right. The world was at peace. >> >> >> Until Cain slew Abel: >> >> Genesis: 4:8 >> >> And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they >>were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew >>him. >> >> There has been no peace on the Earth since that day. > > > > Actually, I'd say since Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit. Ever since Eve. |