"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...
Almost makes me wish i had a mortgage again.
In my day I had signed up for 11.25% back in the mid '70s.
When I sold that house and moved back into the city I lucked out at
around
6%
This house has been paid for almost 10 years now.

I have always paid cash for everything, including houses.

Casady


That's fine if it doesn't drain your liquidity to a dangerous level.
There's
nothing wrong with an affordable loan.


For once we agree. How fast can you pull $250,000 out of your house or
$50,000?


At the same speed (probably about 2 weeks with the refi backlog).

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:03:16 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...
Almost makes me wish i had a mortgage again.
In my day I had signed up for 11.25% back in the mid '70s.
When I sold that house and moved back into the city I lucked out at around
6%
This house has been paid for almost 10 years now.

I have always paid cash for everything, including houses.

Casady


That's fine if it doesn't drain your liquidity to a dangerous level. There's
nothing wrong with an affordable loan.


For once we agree. How fast can you pull $250,000 out of your house or
$50,000?

Probably three or four days.

I would just write a check, if that was all I needed. I should find a
better place to park some of the dough. Maybe have Zimmerman build me
a lobsta. Cruise the Mississippi the length of the Iowa portion.

Casady

On 10/27/09 10:32 PM, Richard Casady wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:03:16 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...
Almost makes me wish i had a mortgage again.
In my day I had signed up for 11.25% back in the mid '70s.
When I sold that house and moved back into the city I lucked out at around
6%
This house has been paid for almost 10 years now.

I have always paid cash for everything, including houses.

Casady


That's fine if it doesn't drain your liquidity to a dangerous level. There's
nothing wrong with an affordable loan.


For once we agree. How fast can you pull $250,000 out of your house or
$50,000?

Probably three or four days.

I would just write a check, if that was all I needed. I should find a
better place to park some of the dough. Maybe have Zimmerman build me
a lobsta. Cruise the Mississippi the length of the Iowa portion.

Casady

I'm sure you'd prefer more of a houseboat boat.

Besides, 250 large will not get you a new zimmerman 36' lobster yacht.
You'd need to go to maine or canada, buy a hull and a top from a
reputable molder, and then find yourself a finisher. You might get the
job done for $350,000, but it won't be finished out the way zimmerman
does it.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:44:31 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 10/27/09 10:32 PM, Richard Casady wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:03:16 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...
Almost makes me wish i had a mortgage again.
In my day I had signed up for 11.25% back in the mid '70s.
When I sold that house and moved back into the city I lucked out at around
6%
This house has been paid for almost 10 years now.

I have always paid cash for everything, including houses.

Casady


That's fine if it doesn't drain your liquidity to a dangerous level. There's
nothing wrong with an affordable loan.


For once we agree. How fast can you pull $250,000 out of your house or
$50,000?

Probably three or four days.

I would just write a check, if that was all I needed. I should find a
better place to park some of the dough. Maybe have Zimmerman build me
a lobsta. Cruise the Mississippi the length of the Iowa portion.

Casady

I'm sure you'd prefer more of a houseboat boat.

Besides, 250 large will not get you a new zimmerman 36' lobster yacht.
You'd need to go to maine or canada, buy a hull and a top from a
reputable molder, and then find yourself a finisher. You might get the
job done for $350,000, but it won't be finished out the way zimmerman
does it.

I said I would write a check, not how big.

Casady

On Oct 27, 10:44*pm, H the K wrote:
On 10/27/09 10:32 PM, Richard Casady wrote:





On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:03:16 -0400, *wrote:

In ,
says...
Almost makes me wish i had a mortgage again.
In my day I had signed up for 11.25% back in the mid '70s.
When I sold that house and moved back into the city I lucked out at around
6%
This house has been paid for almost 10 years now.

I have always paid cash for everything, including houses.

Casady

That's fine if it doesn't drain your liquidity to a dangerous level. There's
nothing wrong with an affordable loan.

For once we agree. How fast can you pull $250,000 out of your house or
$50,000?

Probably three or four days.

I would just write a check, if that was all I needed. I should find a
better place to park some of the dough. Maybe have Zimmerman build me
a lobsta. Cruise the Mississippi the length of the Iowa portion.

Casady

I'm sure you'd prefer more of a houseboat boat.

Besides, 250 large will not get you a new zimmerman 36' lobster yacht.
You'd need to go to maine or canada, buy a hull and a top from a
reputable molder, and then find yourself a finisher. You might get the
job done for $350,000, but it won't be finished out the way zimmerman
does it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Harry, show us a picture of yours!!!

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

another couple hundred million from the meltdown. The head of Goldman
Sachs bought a bunch of shares in GS when he found out about the AIG
bailout. A lot of insider trading? Kashkari was named to lead the
Bush $700 billion bailout (that did not seem to help much). Another GS
exec. GS is one of the architects of the meltdown and Derivitives.
Paulson came from GS. So we have put the people who made a fortune off
the bubble in charge of fixing the popping of the bubble. They should
have been banned from the Securities industry, not rewarded.

Ok, let's assume that all you've said is factually accurate. You can't
seriously think that causes a world-wide financial meltdown is the right
course of action. That's what was about to happen. As much as I was
distrustful of Paulson (in a large measure of the Bush company he was
keeping), he, Geitner, Bernanke, and Summers acted to restore
confidence. As someone said in a previous thread, in essence the
financial system is a confidence game. I'm not disputing that, but it is
also the grease that keeps things moving. You can't have a complex and
robust financial system without having confidence in it. The debt is
large and growing larger. No doubt. But you can't cut off your nose to
spite your face. Debt can be paid back, reduced, mitigated, but people's
lives and their survival (which is ultimately what was at stake) can't
be put back together so easily.

You're right. Some of the people who caused the crisis or allowed it to
happen are around. In some respects they're the ones who have to fix it.
I'm certainly not qualified, and I doubt you are (or anyone else in this
forum). They're making their best efforts for the most part to fix
things. We need to get things stablized and we need business to start
hiring. That's the bottom line.

--
Nom=de=Plume


He has not inspired confidence in the dollar. And that is what you say
is required. Just look at Gold, oil and all other dollar denominated
commodities. They have soared in price. A direct result of the
overspending without real merit.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/s...?Symbol=/EURUS chart of
the euro vs. $.

The relative price of the dollar isn't the issue.

Sometimes a weak dollar is good, for example for tourism or for selling
goods in foreign markets. Sometimes a weak dollar is bad, for example
foreign investment in the US. If it were get really out of wack down, then
there might be a problem with our largest foreign creditors, since they
might decide to pull their funds. (This is unlikely if we're working on
the problem, since they would take a huge loss if they removed their funds
precipitously).

Sometimes a strong dollar is good, for example for our tourism abroad or
for buying imported items. Sometimes a strong dollar is bad, for example
foreigners travelling here are discouraged.

It's always a double-edged sword with respect to the strength of the
dollar.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Is not the strenth of the dollar presently but why is the dollar falling and
dollar denominated commodities rising.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

another couple hundred million from the meltdown. The head of Goldman
Sachs bought a bunch of shares in GS when he found out about the AIG
bailout. A lot of insider trading? Kashkari was named to lead the
Bush $700 billion bailout (that did not seem to help much). Another
GS exec. GS is one of the architects of the meltdown and Derivitives.
Paulson came from GS. So we have put the people who made a fortune
off the bubble in charge of fixing the popping of the bubble. They
should have been banned from the Securities industry, not rewarded.

Ok, let's assume that all you've said is factually accurate. You can't
seriously think that causes a world-wide financial meltdown is the
right course of action. That's what was about to happen. As much as I
was distrustful of Paulson (in a large measure of the Bush company he
was keeping), he, Geitner, Bernanke, and Summers acted to restore
confidence. As someone said in a previous thread, in essence the
financial system is a confidence game. I'm not disputing that, but it
is also the grease that keeps things moving. You can't have a complex
and robust financial system without having confidence in it. The debt
is large and growing larger. No doubt. But you can't cut off your nose
to spite your face. Debt can be paid back, reduced, mitigated, but
people's lives and their survival (which is ultimately what was at
stake) can't be put back together so easily.

You're right. Some of the people who caused the crisis or allowed it to
happen are around. In some respects they're the ones who have to fix
it. I'm certainly not qualified, and I doubt you are (or anyone else in
this forum). They're making their best efforts for the most part to fix
things. We need to get things stablized and we need business to start
hiring. That's the bottom line.

--
Nom=de=Plume


He has not inspired confidence in the dollar. And that is what you say
is required. Just look at Gold, oil and all other dollar denominated
commodities. They have soared in price. A direct result of the
overspending without real merit.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/s...?Symbol=/EURUS chart of
the euro vs. $.

The relative price of the dollar isn't the issue.

Sometimes a weak dollar is good, for example for tourism or for selling
goods in foreign markets. Sometimes a weak dollar is bad, for example
foreign investment in the US. If it were get really out of wack down,
then there might be a problem with our largest foreign creditors, since
they might decide to pull their funds. (This is unlikely if we're working
on the problem, since they would take a huge loss if they removed their
funds precipitously).

Sometimes a strong dollar is good, for example for our tourism abroad or
for buying imported items. Sometimes a strong dollar is bad, for example
foreigners travelling here are discouraged.

It's always a double-edged sword with respect to the strength of the
dollar.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Is not the strenth of the dollar presently but why is the dollar falling
and dollar denominated commodities rising.

Actually, it really doesn't matter why it falls (or strengthens) unless
either condition is a symptom of an underlying condition that is not
reversable. There's no reason why the underlying conditions that are causing
the fall is unfixable, and again, spending had to be increased to stave off
an even worse short term problem..

Here are a couple of links...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=14901181
http://www.etftrends.com/2009/07/5-r...n-be-good.html

--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

another couple hundred million from the meltdown. The head of Goldman
Sachs bought a bunch of shares in GS when he found out about the AIG
bailout. A lot of insider trading? Kashkari was named to lead the
Bush $700 billion bailout (that did not seem to help much). Another
GS exec. GS is one of the architects of the meltdown and Derivitives.
Paulson came from GS. So we have put the people who made a fortune
off the bubble in charge of fixing the popping of the bubble. They
should have been banned from the Securities industry, not rewarded.

Ok, let's assume that all you've said is factually accurate. You can't
seriously think that causes a world-wide financial meltdown is the
right course of action. That's what was about to happen. As much as I
was distrustful of Paulson (in a large measure of the Bush company he
was keeping), he, Geitner, Bernanke, and Summers acted to restore
confidence. As someone said in a previous thread, in essence the
financial system is a confidence game. I'm not disputing that, but it
is also the grease that keeps things moving. You can't have a complex
and robust financial system without having confidence in it. The debt
is large and growing larger. No doubt. But you can't cut off your nose
to spite your face. Debt can be paid back, reduced, mitigated, but
people's lives and their survival (which is ultimately what was at
stake) can't be put back together so easily.

You're right. Some of the people who caused the crisis or allowed it
to happen are around. In some respects they're the ones who have to
fix it. I'm certainly not qualified, and I doubt you are (or anyone
else in this forum). They're making their best efforts for the most
part to fix things. We need to get things stablized and we need
business to start hiring. That's the bottom line.

--
Nom=de=Plume


He has not inspired confidence in the dollar. And that is what you say
is required. Just look at Gold, oil and all other dollar denominated
commodities. They have soared in price. A direct result of the
overspending without real merit.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/s...?Symbol=/EURUS chart of
the euro vs. $.

The relative price of the dollar isn't the issue.

Sometimes a weak dollar is good, for example for tourism or for selling
goods in foreign markets. Sometimes a weak dollar is bad, for example
foreign investment in the US. If it were get really out of wack down,
then there might be a problem with our largest foreign creditors, since
they might decide to pull their funds. (This is unlikely if we're
working on the problem, since they would take a huge loss if they
removed their funds precipitously).

Sometimes a strong dollar is good, for example for our tourism abroad or
for buying imported items. Sometimes a strong dollar is bad, for example
foreigners travelling here are discouraged.

It's always a double-edged sword with respect to the strength of the
dollar.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Is not the strenth of the dollar presently but why is the dollar falling
and dollar denominated commodities rising.

Actually, it really doesn't matter why it falls (or strengthens) unless
either condition is a symptom of an underlying condition that is not
reversable. There's no reason why the underlying conditions that are
causing the fall is unfixable, and again, spending had to be increased to
stave off an even worse short term problem..

Here are a couple of links...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=14901181
http://www.etftrends.com/2009/07/5-r...n-be-good.html

--
Nom=de=Plume


The 2nd link, says it is good for those betting on the dollar falling.
Makes our trade deficit even worse. Takes more dollars to buy the same
Chinese stuff.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

another couple hundred million from the meltdown. The head of Goldman
Sachs bought a bunch of shares in GS when he found out about the AIG
bailout. A lot of insider trading? Kashkari was named to lead the
Bush $700 billion bailout (that did not seem to help much). Another
GS exec. GS is one of the architects of the meltdown and
Derivitives. Paulson came from GS. So we have put the people who
made a fortune off the bubble in charge of fixing the popping of the
bubble. They should have been banned from the Securities industry,
not rewarded.

Ok, let's assume that all you've said is factually accurate. You
can't seriously think that causes a world-wide financial meltdown is
the right course of action. That's what was about to happen. As much
as I was distrustful of Paulson (in a large measure of the Bush
company he was keeping), he, Geitner, Bernanke, and Summers acted to
restore confidence. As someone said in a previous thread, in essence
the financial system is a confidence game. I'm not disputing that,
but it is also the grease that keeps things moving. You can't have a
complex and robust financial system without having confidence in it.
The debt is large and growing larger. No doubt. But you can't cut off
your nose to spite your face. Debt can be paid back, reduced,
mitigated, but people's lives and their survival (which is ultimately
what was at stake) can't be put back together so easily.

You're right. Some of the people who caused the crisis or allowed it
to happen are around. In some respects they're the ones who have to
fix it. I'm certainly not qualified, and I doubt you are (or anyone
else in this forum). They're making their best efforts for the most
part to fix things. We need to get things stablized and we need
business to start hiring. That's the bottom line.

--
Nom=de=Plume


He has not inspired confidence in the dollar. And that is what you
say is required. Just look at Gold, oil and all other dollar
denominated commodities. They have soared in price. A direct result
of the overspending without real merit.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/s...?Symbol=/EURUS chart of
the euro vs. $.

The relative price of the dollar isn't the issue.

Sometimes a weak dollar is good, for example for tourism or for selling
goods in foreign markets. Sometimes a weak dollar is bad, for example
foreign investment in the US. If it were get really out of wack down,
then there might be a problem with our largest foreign creditors, since
they might decide to pull their funds. (This is unlikely if we're
working on the problem, since they would take a huge loss if they
removed their funds precipitously).

Sometimes a strong dollar is good, for example for our tourism abroad
or for buying imported items. Sometimes a strong dollar is bad, for
example foreigners travelling here are discouraged.

It's always a double-edged sword with respect to the strength of the
dollar.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Is not the strenth of the dollar presently but why is the dollar falling
and dollar denominated commodities rising.

Actually, it really doesn't matter why it falls (or strengthens) unless
either condition is a symptom of an underlying condition that is not
reversable. There's no reason why the underlying conditions that are
causing the fall is unfixable, and again, spending had to be increased to
stave off an even worse short term problem..

Here are a couple of links...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=14901181
http://www.etftrends.com/2009/07/5-r...n-be-good.html

--
Nom=de=Plume


The 2nd link, says it is good for those betting on the dollar falling.
Makes our trade deficit even worse. Takes more dollars to buy the same
Chinese stuff.

Yes, as I said, it has good and bad side-effects. If you want to argue that
a continually shrinking dollar is a bad thing in the long run, that's
certainly a reasonable argument. A continually expanding dollar would also
be a bad thing.

We certainly have a growing deficit, and that's certainly a problem that
needs to be addressed, but it can't be the entire focus when 'fixing' the
economy, esp. in the short-term. It's a long-term problem.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

another couple hundred million from the meltdown. The head of Goldman
Sachs bought a bunch of shares in GS when he found out about the
AIG bailout. A lot of insider trading? Kashkari was named to lead
the Bush $700 billion bailout (that did not seem to help much).
Another GS exec. GS is one of the architects of the meltdown and
Derivitives. Paulson came from GS. So we have put the people who
made a fortune off the bubble in charge of fixing the popping of
the bubble. They should have been banned from the Securities
industry, not rewarded.

Ok, let's assume that all you've said is factually accurate. You
can't seriously think that causes a world-wide financial meltdown is
the right course of action. That's what was about to happen. As much
as I was distrustful of Paulson (in a large measure of the Bush
company he was keeping), he, Geitner, Bernanke, and Summers acted to
restore confidence. As someone said in a previous thread, in essence
the financial system is a confidence game. I'm not disputing that,
but it is also the grease that keeps things moving. You can't have a
complex and robust financial system without having confidence in it.
The debt is large and growing larger. No doubt. But you can't cut
off your nose to spite your face. Debt can be paid back, reduced,
mitigated, but people's lives and their survival (which is
ultimately what was at stake) can't be put back together so easily.

You're right. Some of the people who caused the crisis or allowed it
to happen are around. In some respects they're the ones who have to
fix it. I'm certainly not qualified, and I doubt you are (or anyone
else in this forum). They're making their best efforts for the most
part to fix things. We need to get things stablized and we need
business to start hiring. That's the bottom line.

--
Nom=de=Plume


He has not inspired confidence in the dollar. And that is what you
say is required. Just look at Gold, oil and all other dollar
denominated commodities. They have soared in price. A direct result
of the overspending without real merit.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/s...?Symbol=/EURUS chart
of the euro vs. $.

The relative price of the dollar isn't the issue.

Sometimes a weak dollar is good, for example for tourism or for
selling goods in foreign markets. Sometimes a weak dollar is bad, for
example foreign investment in the US. If it were get really out of
wack down, then there might be a problem with our largest foreign
creditors, since they might decide to pull their funds. (This is
unlikely if we're working on the problem, since they would take a huge
loss if they removed their funds precipitously).

Sometimes a strong dollar is good, for example for our tourism abroad
or for buying imported items. Sometimes a strong dollar is bad, for
example foreigners travelling here are discouraged.

It's always a double-edged sword with respect to the strength of the
dollar.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Is not the strenth of the dollar presently but why is the dollar
falling and dollar denominated commodities rising.

Actually, it really doesn't matter why it falls (or strengthens) unless
either condition is a symptom of an underlying condition that is not
reversable. There's no reason why the underlying conditions that are
causing the fall is unfixable, and again, spending had to be increased
to stave off an even worse short term problem..

Here are a couple of links...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=14901181
http://www.etftrends.com/2009/07/5-r...n-be-good.html

--
Nom=de=Plume


The 2nd link, says it is good for those betting on the dollar falling.
Makes our trade deficit even worse. Takes more dollars to buy the same
Chinese stuff.

Yes, as I said, it has good and bad side-effects. If you want to argue
that a continually shrinking dollar is a bad thing in the long run, that's
certainly a reasonable argument. A continually expanding dollar would also
be a bad thing.

We certainly have a growing deficit, and that's certainly a problem that
needs to be addressed, but it can't be the entire focus when 'fixing' the
economy, esp. in the short-term. It's a long-term problem.

--
Nom=de=Plume


With the state and federal spending habits, Overspending is a long term
thing.