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.
So....what do you live in.....a van down by the river ???
Right now I live in apartment on the Hudson. So by the river is right, a fair bit larger than a van and a lot less mobile though. Don't like it here, but I new I wouldn't and it was (and is) a temporary move that made sense for some reasons that don't matter here. Kid starts school this year so I'll be elsewhere shortly.
Before that I lived in a 4 bedroom house in northwest Connecticut.
The next place will be more permanent - well the town will be the house won't be since I'll rent for a year before I buy (longer if the government props up prices for more than a year). I'm tossing up between Fair Lawn and River Edge in NJ and the out of left field option of Gainesville FL (cheaper housing, lower income tax, know some people, my job comes with me).
You still don't seem to understand that the people who got these loans looked at their agents and lenders as "knowledgeable" experts.....they would have felt no need to look for further help or advice !!!
In which case they are idiots. As I keep saying, you don't only take advice from people whose interests conflict with yours. The more you spend on the house the more commission the agent makes, so clearly their interests do not a align with the buyer. Similar with the lender.
Seriously, you only need to get that piece of advice once - it applies no matter what house you end up buying. Do you not get an independent inspection of the property, or do you just take the seller's advice?
the out of left field option of Gainesville FL (cheaper housing, lower income tax, know some people, my job comes with me).
My children move to Ocala, Florida a year and a half ago and I visit frequently.......I'm 62 and life isn't the same without having my children close so I too am attempting to get my "semi-retirement" ducks in a row to move closer to them in the future. There are deals aplenty down there!
Do you not get an independent inspection of the property, or do you just take the seller's advice?
Actually I did pre-purchase home inspections for 20 years....over 5000 home inspections.....I moved laterally into radon...I do some testing but mostly I mitigate homes now with excessive radon levels....about 150 a year.
Actually I did pre-purchase home inspections for 20 years....over 5000 home inspections.....I moved laterally into radon...I do some testing but mostly I mitigate homes now with excessive radon levels....about 150 a year.
Cool - is radon a big problem in NJ? Never really heard much about it around here, but I know it was in PA.
Does it freak people out? Or would it freak you out? Or is it something that can be successfully treated so that you'd feel safe, knowing what you know?
Cool - is radon a big problem in NJ? Never really heard much about it around here, but I know it was in PA. New Jersey has one of the worst radon problems of all the states....so much so the state DEP actually made our radon protocol more stringent that that of the EPA.....we also have a special radon division that oversees all radon testing and mitigation in the state.....while Northern Jersey has more problems that Southern its a problem throughout the state.
Does it freak people out? Or would it freak you out? Or is it something that can be successfully treated so that you'd feel safe, knowing what you know?
I've been mitigating homes for 20+ years and have never had a house that I couldn't successfully reduce and I've mitigated homes 20 times higher that the allowable safe level. Most informed buyers don't get "freaked out" but they do insist that the house be mitigated if it has elevated levels. Bottom line is that ALL house have some radon....you just want it below the allowable guidelines. I'm in south Jersey but I mitigate homes from Princeton all the way down to Woolwich Twp.
man, this thread is an all out b*tch fest... i agree with you all though.
vote republican.
Warren Buffett is one of the most astute investors and businessmen on Earth. He has been a republican for the bulk of his life, and not a rino (republican in name only) either, a Nebraska republican. In the last election Warren Buffett backed a democrat for the first time in his life !
Why do you think Warren Buffett backed (now President) Obama ? It is likely because he saw that continuing the Bush administration policies just wasn't working. McCain would've promulgated more of the tired old policies of his party. Trickle-down economics worked well for Reagan and produced growth of 3.42% in the 80's. BTW, Clinton presided over growth of 3.76% in the 90's. The 00's under Bush saw just over 2% and obviously ended with a recession.
The point is that Paris Hilton can only buy so many pairs of shoes which is supposed to trickle-down ultimately to the guy who parks her car at the mall. This works for a while, maybe a decade or two until it doesn't, like any cycle, so here we are.
Median household income per the U.S. census was $50,557 in 2000 and $50,223 in 2007 -- or growth of 0% (as opposed to income growth of 8% under Reagan and 14% under Clinton).
Point is that during the 00's, we had growth of 2%, not great but still growth nonetheless, but the incomes actually went down. That is a business model that just can't work long term, and didn't. That is why Warren Buffett voted democratic for the first time in his life. It was time for a change !
Warren Buffett is one of the most astute investors and businessmen on Earth. He has been a republican for the bulk of his life, and not a rino (republican in name only) either, a Nebraska republican. In the last election Warren Buffett backed a democrat for the first time in his life !
Why do you think Warren Buffett backed (now President) Obama ? It is likely because he saw that continuing the Bush administration policies just wasn't working. McCain would've promulgated more of the tired old policies of his party. Trickle-down economics worked well for Reagan and produced growth of 3.42% in the 80's. BTW, Clinton presided over growth of 3.76% in the 90's. The 00's under Bush saw just over 2% and obviously ended with a recession.
The point is that Paris Hilton can only buy so many pairs of shoes which is supposed to trickle-down ultimately to the guy who parks her car at the mall. This works for a while, maybe a decade or two until it doesn't, like any cycle, so here we are.
Median household income per the U.S. census was $50,557 in 2000 and $50,223 in 2007 -- or growth of 0% (as opposed to income growth of 8% under Reagan and 14% under Clinton).
Point is that during the 00's, we had growth of 2%, not great but still growth nonetheless, but the incomes actually went down. That is a business model that just can't work long term, and didn't. That is why Warren Buffett voted democratic for the first time in his life. It was time for a change !
You cannot cite household income growth numbers because they don't really mean much. Our entire nation's net worth has been based on the idea that we can completely ignore the trade deficit that has been balooning for 30 years. It's akin to speaking about how much money you have while ignoring your credit card bills. All of this Reagan vs Bush vs Clinton vs Bush 2 vs Obama nonsense is semantics. They all did the same thing. Deficit borrowing, spending, and expansion of the trade deficit. It really doesn't matter who's in office. Democrats and Republicans are both doing their best to destroy this country in the name of bipartisanship. We came to a point last year where we needed to drastically reduce government spending by levels of upwards of 80%. Instead, Bush filled up the gas tank, turned on the car, and drove towards a cliff. Now Obama is telling you that when you are on that path, you need to turn around. Instead, Obama shifted into 4th gear and stepped on the gas. Not only that, he hit the nitrous oxide button. Is he well intentioned? I believe so. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It always is.
The point is that Paris Hilton can only buy so many pairs of shoes which is supposed to trickle-down ultimately to the guy who parks her car at the mall. This works for a while, maybe a decade or two until it doesn't, like any cycle, so here we are.
Well......if we can hang on till 2012 Sarah Palin will probably run for president and the amount she spends on her wardrobe will surely pull us out of this recession !!!!
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.
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.
