U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-04-2017, 08:00 PM
 
3,803 posts, read 2,019,304 times
Reputation: 3270

Advertisements

It's simple.


Houses price increases are outpacing salary increases. I am not saying salary should be increased higher but maybe housing price increases ought to be regulated. House is the single biggest expense of a household. It has come to a point that it has become unaffordable even for the middle class without having to enslave in a life journey of paying the mortgage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-04-2017, 11:12 PM
 
Location: Washington state
5,440 posts, read 2,767,327 times
Reputation: 16373
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRex2 View Post
The U.S. CDC did almost nothing, at the outset of the Ebola crisis, because they were too busy siphoning off dollars that were supposed to go towards monitoring and reacting to emergent threats, for politically motivated projects. Much of the early fight was carried by others.
Hospitals, historically, were created and run by Jewish and Christian organizations, and did a better job for less money, before the U.S. Government got involved.

I worked for the U.S. Government for many years. They have a specific role, assigned to them by the Constitution. Much of what they do today is outside of that assigned role, and causes nothing by problems.


People who use food stamps do NOT help keep our grocery stores open. The people who pay for those food stamps are doing that. People who receive welfare do NOT almost all work, else it would not be called welfare. Retirement is a different matter.


We are all in this together.
Some carry more than their fair share.

And some do not.
They are the ones who keep asking the Government to do things.


You need to take another look at what the CDC does. One of the things they do is fight outbreaks in other countries so those outbreaks don't start here in the US. Many of our state epidemiologists worked for the CDC when they first started, and those are the people you depend on when there's an outbreak in your state.

https://www.cdc.gov/about/organizati...lishments.html

As for hospitals, I think it's something like 1 in 8 of our hospitals now are owned by a Catholic organization with devastating results for women. When the two hospitals in my area were taken over by Franciscan Health, people here were up in arms demanding these hospitals still keep their secular values. The articles below tell you this is what happens when religion gets mixed up in hospital care.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...08-column.html

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/19/110553...en-miscarriage

http://www.refinery29.com/2015/09/93...e#.wgev4y:m22r

http://madamenoire.com/714716/cathol...leeding-woman/

http://www.newsweek.com/why-are-male...fe-risk-514227


And if you don't think the FDA doesn't keep our food safe, regardless of how much better a job they could do, they you should go to other countries and see what their food is like there.

And let me ask you, how long do you think grocery stores would last without people spending their food stamps there? I'm not saying food stamps are a huge portion of the stores' profits, but they do make up a significant portion. If they didn't, do you seriously think the owners of grocery stores would take them?

"For about every dollar of benefit reduction or spending, there's about a 37-cent loss in grocery sales," said Ted Stenger, managing director at AlixPartners.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/29/reta...s-are-cut.html

SNAP Plays Outsized Role in the Economy of Rural Grocery Stores - Daily Yonder

And it's been shown in study after study that the majority of people who receive welfare work. Not everyone gets welfare. Not everyone qualifies for food stamps. But for the ones who do, the majority of them work.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/12/one-...are-study.html

Welfare In America: Most Low-Wage, Full-Time Workers Use Food Stamps, Housing Assistance, Analysis Shows

https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015...eady-have-one/

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/b...ce-anyway.html

What part of the government did you work for? The ones that charged $20 for a $2 hammer?

Last edited by rodentraiser; 10-04-2017 at 11:36 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 03:50 AM
 
Location: SE corner of the Ozark Redoubt
2,794 posts, read 936,377 times
Reputation: 2832
Reality is, the CDC and FDA have become pawns of the corporate interests they serve, and, thanks to liberal leadership, useful for sponsoring propaganda for "progressive" interests.

While there are problems with Catholic Hospitals, the secularization and government control of hospitals has resulted in rapid increases in cost with much slower increases in quality.

Food stamps don't keep groceries open, people who pay for the groceries do, whether they pay directly with cash, or give someone money to pay for theirs. Taking a dollar from the the payer, and returning 37 cents to the grocer is not a good investment. Government redistribution of wealth (aka socialism or communism) is a highly addictive opiate that only serves to reelect liberal politicians, distort perception of reality for the weak minded, and enslave the citizens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 04:34 AM
 
12,303 posts, read 15,209,125 times
Reputation: 8114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yippeekayay View Post
It's simple.


Houses price increases are outpacing salary increases. I am not saying salary should be increased higher but maybe housing price increases ought to be regulated. House is the single biggest expense of a household. It has come to a point that it has become unaffordable even for the middle class without having to enslave in a life journey of paying the mortgage.
You can't regulate land prices. But you could relax zoning laws, allowing more homes per hectare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 06:33 AM
 
20,605 posts, read 16,659,647 times
Reputation: 38723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yippeekayay View Post
It's simple.


Houses price increases are outpacing salary increases. I am not saying salary should be increased higher but maybe housing price increases ought to be regulated. House is the single biggest expense of a household. It has come to a point that it has become unaffordable even for the middle class without having to enslave in a life journey of paying the mortgage.
If you do that, you hurt homeowners by taking away their equity in the home. Who would even buy if from the get-go you tell them it can't increase in value beyond a certain amount? And what would you do with the millions of homes already owned?


Also property taxes which support schools and roads and the fire department and the cops are based on home value. Drop the value of the homes and we all live in Detroit with no services and no money.


It is property taxes btw that is the biggest part of many mortgages. I just bought a house for app $100,000 even. The mortgage amount will be app. $350 a month, the tax portion will be about $700 a month.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 06:58 AM
 
Location: SE corner of the Ozark Redoubt
2,794 posts, read 936,377 times
Reputation: 2832
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl View Post
If you do that, you hurt homeowners by taking away their equity in the home. Who would even buy if from the get-go you tell them it can't increase in value beyond a certain amount? And what would you do with the millions of homes already owned?

Also property taxes which support schools and roads and the fire department and the cops are based on home value. Drop the value of the homes and we all live in Detroit with no services and no money.
It was an idea that was not thought through, by the poster. They don't seem to realize that every time you invite government to interfere with the markets, you invite disaster. The housing bubble and crash of 2007 and 2008 was caused, not by lack of regulation, as many people believe, but by government attempting to change market forces and "make housing affordable" to those who could not afford houses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 07:23 AM
 
Location: R.I.
980 posts, read 606,846 times
Reputation: 4248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yippeekayay View Post
It's simple.


Houses price increases are outpacing salary increases. I am not saying salary should be increased higher but maybe housing price increases ought to be regulated.
My late husband and I built our home in 1990 for the cost of $225,00. With the interest rates back then being around 11%, with our combined income of <$50,000 it would take more than a 20% down payment to get us into our home because with our income we could not afford a $180,000 mortgage at 11%. Over the course of 4 years of hard work, hard saving, and hard sacrifice we were able to save > 20% down payment, and that along with the interest rates dropping to 9% we were finally able to qualify for the lower mortgage amount that we now needed to build our home.

Although I don't have an exact $$ figure, over the course of 27 years I have owned my home I guesstimate with improvements such as a new roof and windows that cost $25,000, a $30,000 kitchen renovation, a deck and shed costing another $10,000 and countless other things that needed to be repaired or replaced I have easily put in around $130,000 into my home. When you add $130,000 in improvements to the $225,000 original cost of our home that = $355,000. At present my home is appraised for $400,000, and if I could sell it at that price subtracting all the money I put into it for improvements, and add to that the 6% commission paid to the real estate agent and all the other fees involved with the sale I would be lucky to walk away with a $21,000 profit.

So do you still think housing prices should be regulated ?? You better be careful what you wish for because if you own a home for nearly 30 years like I have and take a look back at all the $$$ you have put into it for repairs and improvements during that time, you will be the first person to complain if some regulatory body determines that you have to sell your home for less than what you paid for it combined with what you put into it.

Last edited by Nightengale212; 10-05-2017 at 07:47 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 03:31 PM
 
Location: Washington state
5,440 posts, read 2,767,327 times
Reputation: 16373
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRex2 View Post
It was an idea that was not thought through, by the poster. They don't seem to realize that every time you invite government to interfere with the markets, you invite disaster. The housing bubble and crash of 2007 and 2008 was caused, not by lack of regulation, as many people believe, but by government attempting to change market forces and "make housing affordable" to those who could not afford houses.
And the reason those loans were available to people who couldn't afford them was because of the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, "which took down that wall between the banks that made routine loans and the ones that did risky investments."

That act was, in effect, deregulation of the loan industry. It reversed the "Glass-Steagall act...(which) barred commercial banks from getting into the investment business. It raised barriers between commercial banks, securities firms and insurance companies."


Every single time the government had opted out of federal regulation for any group, the result has been disaster. It would be wonderful if the government didn't have to get involved, but they're like the parent who has to keep control over his kids. When there are no federal rules and no punishment for misbehaving, there is nothing to keep the kids in control. Our systems without government control break down and they break down with a vengeance.

We end up with mafia type businesses where there are kickbacks, violence, bribery, and illegal acts, some of which, at their best, have the ability to wipe out the life savings and homes of people in the US and bring down the economy around the world. We have anti-trust laws for a reason. Groups like the FDA and OSHA are there for a reason. The FAA is there for a reason. We have anti-discriminatory laws for a reason. We didn't have any regulations for the banks and we had 2008.

10 Unforeseen Effects of Deregulation | HowStuffWorks

The myth of deregulation's consumer benefits - latimes

Let me ask you something: would you personally fly on any airline if the FAA didn't oversee them? Because God knows, I sure wouldn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 04:03 PM
 
Location: SE corner of the Ozark Redoubt
2,794 posts, read 936,377 times
Reputation: 2832
Done that lots of times. Worked for the FAA for a while,
and been on lots of planes the FAA didn't oversee.

Been overseas a few times. In several countries.
Got along fine without the FDA. Sometimes wondered why
cats or dogs were missing from the neighborhood, tho...

Worked in places where OSHA didn't have any say, either.

Quote:
mafia type businesses where there are kickbacks, violence, bribery, and illegal acts,
Actually, that is a pretty good description of the government

When I worked on some ranchland, we decided the government was
like snakes. Without snakes, the rats would overrun us. But don't
ever get the idea that the snakes are your friends, either, and too
many snakes could be a serious problem (as they are opportunistic).

Now, try getting your financial lessons from someone other
than a cool aid vender:
https://www.cato.org/publications/co...egulation-myth
Quote:
When the Fed is printing money we think we are wealthier than we are, which creates excessive consumption. The consumption largely migrated toward the residential real estate market thanks to affordable housing lending quotas imposed on Freddie and Fannie by Congress. When the government sponsored enterprises failed they owed $5 trillion and had $2 trillion in subprime mortgages on their books. With a 65% market share, they drove down the lending standards for the whole industry.
In fact, the Bush administration warned congress repeatedly
that their policies were driving us towards disaster.
http://www.realverse.com/president-b...ousing-crisis/
Quote:
For many years President Bush and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 07:45 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
7,629 posts, read 14,385,467 times
Reputation: 18712
Which is why we taught our kids from the time they were little "Your position in life is directly related to the choices/decisions you make."

Our kids never got allowances handed to them, they each had a "check book ledger" where we would "deposit" and they had to "withdraw" from what they had and keep the ledger correctly, or their next "deposit" would not be made until it was....they also were given their "set amt of spending money per day" when on vacation (Disneyland, Six Flags) and they were NOT allowed to do the "I want this/that" unless they could cover the cost with their allotment (altho, they WERE allowed to "borrow" from the next day moving forward for something more expensive that they wanted....HOWEVER, the next day, they could NOT "Borrow" again....and we found that they were FAR more judicial with their "wants" once they realized "but then I will only have this much left over"....

All 6 of our kids grew up to be financially responsible and living well, but to this day, they will tell you that my motto when they were growing up was "If it is not on sale, we don't need it".....

I do feel sorry for those in a financial bind for in their golden years, especially those who did save and do the "right thing" in preparing for retirement and then got wiped out thru things like medical needs/issues or those things not within their control.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top