Please log in to view images

Nobody's comments

Comments 1 - 40 of 388    Next »    Last »

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2010 Jul 27, 8:05pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Troy, lennon and myeastbayhouses,

You guys are sad. Troy, your calculation does not make sense. How can the monthly mortgage payment be $2200 at 3.88%? Yeah, how can the subtotal be $2200 with the tax of $900? How did you come up with $165K? How can you even get the 30 years fixed interest rate of 3.88%? How can you reduce the principle balance to a half in 10 years by just paying $2200 a month? Google the mortgage payment schedule or do the log scale on your spreadsheet. You will see the balance will come down significantly only toward the end.

Sure, lennon, house should bring us happiness and joy. How can we be happy knowing that value of my house came down substantially? Do I know the housing market is going to tank? Yes, I do. That is unless the US government is going to rain down on my parade. I am looking to buy a house. But guys like you totally turn me off. You need to take it at what it is. Don't twist it. Don't cover. Don't sugar coat. Don't even suggest that I can get 3.88% on the jumbo loan. Acknowledge that the banks are holding many properties on mortgage limbo. My real estate agent is candid. I am committed to working with her.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2010 Jul 29, 10:48am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

@ Troy,

You gotta be sh**ing me. How can 20% of $850K be 165K? Did you even graduate high school? It is $170K. How can the monthly mortgage payment be $2200 on the 15 year loan, when the loan principle is more than $600K? Let's see, 80% of $850K is $680K. So if there is no interest, you still have to pay $680K/180 payments = $3777.78 Add interest of 3.88% to that, you will be paying close to $5000 a month. Your math does not make sense at all. First clean up the number.

So the subtotal with the property tax, adjustment for inflation and interest, would still make the subtotal of more than $5700 still. So how can you even get $2200? So let's see, the bank states that mortgage payment and property tax should not exceed 30% of their income. so $5700/30% will be $19K a month. That would be 12 months X $19K = $228K annual income after paying 20% of the down payment. OK, that's fine. I am sure there are many people who make that kinda salary in Silicon Valley.

One more thing, good luck getting jumbo loan on 15 year loan. It is just not happening, buddy.

Is this how you con an unsuspecting people who can't even afford a house to buy a house? This recession was partly caused by the people's stupidity and inability to do the simple math. And it is causing us to lose jobs, house and causing our misery in general. And this is how YOU BECAME THE PART OF THE CAUSE. SHAME ON YOU. And stop down playing exactly how much it would cost to own this property. I agree the joy of owning house can not equate to a monetary gain. But this is simply outrageous.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2010 Sep 23, 4:45am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Actually, FED has a point for the first time. I am nobody, but this makes sense to me. First we need to increase the value of Chinese currency. It will inflate the price of product, but it will promote to bring the job back into United States. Remember the jobs... If we have a higher earning, then it won't be so bad. The problem is Obama and Geithner. They are so caught up in getting in bed with Chinese, they wouldn't even call China the currency manipulator. Trust me, until we fire Tim Geithner, the slime ball boy, we will continue to suffer loss of jobs to overseas.

Secondly, our economy depends on consumption too much. We need to produce a lot more to balance our GDP to a healthy level. I just don't understand how we can keep spending without producing as much or more.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2010 Sep 24, 2:49pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

It is sad to see the facet of housing bubble deflation. As long as we see this type of stupid transactions, we will never see the economic recover. It is sad, cause it really won't do any of us any good. I guess the listing agent has money and time to waste on this property.

I have a feeling that this property is going to be foreclosed eventually. That would be another year or so. So the economy won't recover for another year or so.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2010 Oct 18, 11:12am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

In a mean time, I honestly pay monthly rent for my son and myself, or we would get evicted in less than 6 months. And no lawyer or government is going to help us, because it legitimate for our landlord to kick us out. Yeah, that freaking evil landlords.

You say you are a debt slave? How about a rent slave? I have saved and saved for this housing market disaster. It only took an ordinary Joe like to me to predict the housing market crush 6 years ago. I thought I timed it well. Well, that is until stupid lawyers and government decided to rain on my parade. If you wanna moratorium. How about buyers' moratorium to hold off buying any housing until the freaking lawyers decide to stop milking the system or banks get it together.

And every freaking sad stories of home ownership gone awry that media portrays, there is always one thing in common. That home owners got crazy with home equity loan and withdrew more money than they can pay back. And they tell us these sad stories without telling us what really happened. These deadbeats can go f*(& themselves. What is wrong with living in a rental property? Oh, I forgot. You can live in your home without paying your mortgage for more than 18 months. What a deal!

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2010 Oct 18, 11:38am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

It can go both ways. If the majority of the potential buyers decide to wait out, then the price can go down. But that is too logical for people. If the majority of the potential buyers can't wait, because we are trained to salivate and slobber for housing. Then it can push the pricing up. Majority of the people are so illogical and so conditioned, most of us will not even wait.

I was almost in this predicament before. I wanted this certain property real bad 6 years ago, I was going to get it even if it means I am paying a lot more. Then the crazy loan offers pulled me into reality. I had more reason and motivation to own a home for my son who suffers from asthma. But I also have an obligation to support my family. I couldn't take a crazy risk to jeopardize my family's survival. Then people kept raising the price of housing until 2008 to 2009 to my amazement. Now that was after it was well known that housing market has crushed.

Unless there is general BUYERS' MORATORIUM, people are just too well conditioned. The price of housing will go up again. And guess who the biggest losers are? Logical and responsible people like us. In a mean time, my son has to get Albuterol nebulizer therapy everyday.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2010 Nov 18, 5:11am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Troy,

I highly doubt that there will be a buyers' strike, cause we are so conditioned to be a home owner. I sure would like to see that happening. But there is just too much money out there. And only the rich and investors are going to buy those properties to drive up the cost of housing once again. Fine, the price of housing may go up. But again, it won't involve people like me.

So Iwack maybe right in this instance. He is a real estate agent who has nothing to do all day but to visit this website to preach something that may or may not happen. This time, my vision is not so clear like it was 6 years ago, when I foretold the impending disaster to everyone. Of course nobody listened to nobody.

I saved and waited for a good opportunity for 6 years. If Iwack is right, I may have missed an opportunity, because I simply have gotten used to waiting. Now I have about more than a few hundred thousands to sit in the banks that give me only 2% annual return. Unless Republicans is at it again, our economy will most likely recover within the next few years. Since I don't have a crystal ball this time, I think I will just keep the money in the banks just for a disaster that may never happen.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2010 Nov 18, 5:14am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

If there is a collapse of housing price, it does not seem to be happening in Silicon Valley except the bad neighborhood of San Jose. Please, someone, prove me wrong.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2010 Nov 18, 7:47am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

OK, you are just delusional.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2010 Nov 30, 4:03pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Troy,

Give money to the government, they will spend it. That is meaningful. Giving money to the rich has not and will not add money to the economy as much as giving money to the middle to lower income earners. That is the point. And you have already pointed that out.

There maybe no shortage of college grads. So what? It's the quality I am talking about. I have a son. The public education system is just horrible. They have no money to spend on copies, text and study kits. Are you a parent? Then you know what I am talking about.

It was our education system that created INTERNET, semiconductor and found cure for some of the disease. It was our defense system that created GPS. Without these investments by the government, things we are taking for granted have never happened. Just because there are so many college grads, it is utterly useless without a meaningful contribution to the economy and our society.

That 1% of the population who are categorized as wealthy has accumulated wealth much faster than any other decade. If they are opposing the tax hike for the rich, I just gotta say, the greed has no boundary.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 1, 11:05am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

We can't even agree that investing into education could lead to the development of better technology by bickering over the petty little detail. There is no doubt that directly or indirectly our education system has been good to our economy and technology.

Shrekidiot, don't complicate the simple fact of balancing the deficit vs. what is good for our economy. It is not about our emotion or hatred. You need to get the facts straight. And read what I wrote. Also, when you claim that we had failure by increasing the tax, define the detail and fact. I care most about the logic and facts. I don't care about your logic which does not make sense to anyone here or me at all.

So are you saying don't tax the wealthy and keep our federal deficit increasing indefinitely? And we should just keep watching our country downside education system, highway, social service etc? That is sad you feel that way. I have a little bit of patriotism left in me, and I don't mind 4% tax increase.

Or you are writing just to argue? I am what Obama calls higher income earner. I don't mind our government taking mere 4% more from my pay check. My spending habit will not change as much. I may only save a little less each year. And when I retire, I can still retire comfortably.

I think it is problematic when poor is getting poorer and rich getting richer. I guess you don't see that either. I have paid my dues and feel I am entitled to my pay. But I am also appreciative of our government in letting me go to one of the best schools and enabled me to carry out interesting research. And my parents were poor. Without government funding, none of that would ever happened. Hey besides, the 4% increase is tax deductible. It is like donation. I reduced my donation after the donation is no longer tax deductible. So I am back to square one.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 1, 11:30am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Ray,

Get real.

I should not react to a meaningless sarcasm. Let me know a way to delete my post.
This was a knee jerk reflex.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 2, 4:31am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Vincent,

I will not hire or raise salary unless I have a demand for increased production of goods and services. The corporations make decision to hire, when they actually require some one to work and produce. Definitely not because they saved some tax. This is what Republicans' lie is based on. Less tax does not produce jobs. Less tax means less for the federal budget. Less federal budget means cuts, less service, less jobs, less research funds, less school funding etc.

I just want to say that I am not against reducing the corporate tax. Just raise the tax for high income earners whose wealth is sitting in the savings account without contributing much to the economy. If rich people are not going to spend it, take it from them and spend it.

My point is that federal surplus is not evil. It is necessary to keep our nation afloat. A good education system would create more highly skilled workers who can earn higher income. We must remember some corporations tend to locate their companies where the talent is, not overseas. Look at Silicon Valley. What was the average income in Silicon valley as opposed to the rest of the country? Tho it sure is expensive to live here. But that is another point.

I am spending over $2000 a month for my son. I am doing my part to invest in our future with my son. I regularly donate study materials to his school. But we can invest in our future as a country.

I knew the impending economic disaster 6 years ago. I tried to tell my friends and colleagues not to buy a house. Nobody listened. This time, I can feel that our country is taking a dive, and once again nobody is listening. Instead, people are arguing without offering any solution to our federal deficit.

I may not like Obama for his exorbitant spending of our tax to save evil corporations. But this time, I believe he is right on this issue.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 2, 4:47am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Oh, Vincent,

One more thing. We have had 10 years of reduced tax, so where is the job? When Clinton was our president, he increased the tax for the rich. After that, every year during his administration we had our unemployment rate decreased to 4% at the end of his administration. We had federal surplus. And Republicans squandered all of them away.....

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 2, 10:24am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Shrekidiot,

Obviously, you are confusing the arrogance to being willing to help our nation at the time of need. You are the prime example of greed that made our economy gone awry.

"I dunno about you all, but I enjoy a high capital-labor ratio. Because when you have that, you have (a) more job opportunies (b) more job security and (c) more compensation. And since high capital-labor ratios are causes when there is a lot more capital competing against each other for the pool of workers"

No that is not true. It is pretty clear that Macro-economy is not your forte. You are ignoring the last 10 years of lower tax and flooding the market with cash by the Feds have created more unemployment and job instability. I have written this over and over again, but I will do it again. When there is demand for increased production of goods and services, you will see more jobs and more compensation. You need to create more demands by what? Giving money to the rich? Give me a break. It didn't work. Now our education system is shrinking etc. Time to change the strategy. Don't be an idiot to stick to the failed policy.

I don't care if it passes the smell test of twisted degenerative nostril of greed. You can hang with the scumbag Republicans. What you are saying barely makes any logic.

Rayamerica,

Did I mention anything about national debt? I thought i was talking about Federal budget.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 2, 11:11pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Troy,

Sure. But why take away the purchasing power from everyone right now?

It maybe true that we have to raise the taxes across the board eventually. My concern is that it can deflate the demands for domestic consumption by doing so. My position is to first raise the tax for the wealthy, so it has less impact on domestic consumption of goods and services. So it won't effect our jobs. When our federal budge is less into negative, we should begin to see more jobs. With so much capital in the market, our salary or compensation should also improve. At that point, we can increase the tax across the board. I am not sure how else we can start balancing our federal deficit without negatively impacting the majority. But if anyone else has a good idea, I'd like to know.

The fact that 10% of population provide 70% of the federal income tax revenue can also mean the 10% of the population is earning majority of the entire income in US. That sounds pretty lopsided. I understand wealthy worked hard for their money. But concentration of cash to a small group of people will not add to our economy. The money is worth more to the economy, when it is used to purchase goods and services. This is the point I am making as well as many other economists.

Balancing a federal budget should be done without hatred for the wealthy. You can call it class warfare. I just call it simple economic act of balancing the federal budget. It is unconscionable for wealthy to refuse the higher tax when the tax was used to give us the opportunity that we enjoy so much. Our past generation has paid their dues for us, I believe it is time for us to pay ours for our future and our children.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 3, 7:43am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Shrekidiot,

Your ignorance of macro-economy and lack of consideration for our future is really amazing. By twisting posters' comment to delude yourself of your claim is self serving.

It is funny how you think spending cut can cure our federal deficit. It has been interesting to see the other side of story. But your lack of knowledge really disappoints me and makes these threads very superficial and meaningless. That is why you are not getting response. Did you learn anything? I have laid out all the logic of why we need to balance our federal deficit. And the way to start is by taxing the rich.

I feel sorry that you have to come here and rant that you are victimized, just because you are rich. Taxation is not getting screwed in the ass. But some of our tax is used on more meaningful cause. You may not have gotten the education, but more people getting educated is better for our economy. But you probably don't see that.

In any case, it has been interesting. Shrekgreed. Maybe some day you may understand what Artistsoul is saying. Maybe not.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 5, 2:33pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Troy,

You are right. Republicans' lie of "reward the rich, so we have more jobs" just does not make economical logic at all. I am not going to hire workers based on how much money I saved. I hire when I need to increase my production or output of goods and services. If I have more money, I will simply keep it in the bank as a reserve. Why should I add capital when I don't need to increase my production or output? So the money will just sit in the bank adding only 1 to 2 % to the economy.

So how do we stimulate the demand for goods and services? Do you think giving 4% tax cut to the 2% of the population will stimulate the demand? Upside of taxing 4% more to the 2% would mean less federal deficit.

It is unfortunate that the congress has given tax cuts to everyone. We had the same policy for the last 10 years, and it got us into this mess. FED is dumping dollars into the market reducing the value of our savings. It will hurt anyone who has cash. If it wasn't for Chinese, our dollar would have taken more painful hit. Could you imagine $10 for a gallon of gasoline?

Now we extend the tax cuts for everyone, prepare for the worst to come. Having cash reserve will not save you, cause the inflation is going to wipe out the value of dollar. Housing market crush was easy to predict. I knew selling all of my real estate assets was the way to protect the assets. I hope that 2 years are not going to be enough to cause massive problem.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 7, 12:44am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

I am not sure where Shrekidiot is coming from. I have said over and over, we had federal surplus when Clinton was in the office. Bush and Republicans squandered all of them away. And this recession happened during Bush's administration. Is Shrekidiot really this ignorant or he is just a sad excuse for a human being?

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 7, 3:25am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Shrekidiot,

I wonder if you can read into the sarcasm, or you are just too stupid. Or you are just so wrong and uneducated that the sarcasm is the only thing you can come after. The oil does not have to come from China. Oil is tied to US$. If the value of dollar falls, it will increase the price of oil. I am no longer addressing this to you but to others. You have not mentioned a single shred of logic or fact to support your claim. Just an example of your ignorance and stupidity.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 7, 3:27am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Tenouce and Ray,

OK, I am not here to discuss the federal surplus being real or not. But based on your fact, when Clinton raised the tax, the deficit was definitely lower. If we had $110+ billion deficit a year, it seems another small increase in tax on 2% of the population help balance our federal budget. It seems like a small price to pay. My point is that we must first balance the federal budget, because of the reasons I have sighted.

We all know what happened after we had our tax reduced. For the last 10 years, our unemployment went from 4% to 10%. So we need to ask ourselves if lowering the tax really help the jobs.

Oh, let's not pin the federal deficit on Obama alone for the last 2 years. That seems unfair.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 16, 1:01am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

The corporations must make money. And every year, their profit must increase more than the regular inflation. If the demand remained the same, the corporation must increase the profit by cutting cost. In this case, it is the labor cost. Wherever the cost cuts come from, it can not be a permanent solution as there is a demand for increasing business size for more profit. As a business owner, I get squeezed from my workers and the investors.

And I can't increase the size of the business where there is no demand for the services and goods. Rather than focusing on government spending or squandering, tax cuts or printing more money, we should focus more on how we can increase the demand. The history seems to have proven that balancing federal budget is the key to increasing the demand.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 19, 3:16am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

I have not seen any single facts to prove gay marriage is good for our economy. More I read, it seems the opposite. I'd like to know the facts supporting this claim. Cause marriage can reduce the tax revenue by filing jointly. This seems to shrink our education system etc more. Also, the company has to pay extra for the health insurance benefit (some may already do, but I don't really know). I am not sure how it can boost the economy. Can someone outline them?

I am neither against nor for gay marriage. If the gay marriage does boost the economy, perhaps I will be for gay marriage. Can we get back to the main topic?

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 19, 7:07am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Kevin,

I c. Thanks.

I don't really care who marries who. My friends are gays and lesbians. I have fun hanging around them, not in the sexual way. If they ask me to support it, I think I would in the name of freedom and friendship. Though I wonder if you really need a legal institution to declare marriage.

In regard to the claim that legalizing gay marriage has a positive boost on the economy, I suspected this is not a factual claim.

In regard to adopting, surrogacy etc, I wish more homosexual couples can adopt. Some of them are qualified and capable of being an awesome parent. It's not actual child making, but nurturing and giving children the right education and the wisdom would impact our economy in the positive way. One of my homosexual friends loves to babysit my son. She teaches my son violin for free. It's great. My son absolutely loves her and her partner. So from that stand point, I guess that it does have a boosting impact on our economy and our future.

Legalizing gay marriage is a feeling good type of proposition (because it is probably the right thing to do), but this claim of "legalizing gay marriage boosts economy" seemed dubious.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 19, 7:18am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

ellimae,

You can file a temporary restraining order on any grounds. It is so easy, all you have to do is go to court. They will assist filing and serve the order without any cost, if you don't have any income. And the judge is so willing to do it these days, you can pretty much convert it to permanent as long as you show up at the court. I should know, especially in California and New York.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 19, 7:20am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Hey
By the way, my son is 6 and he has no idea that they are lesbians.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 19, 7:46am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

ellie,

I am putting that sentence in to eliminate other idiots from thinking something sleazy from my previous comment. Not to you in particular.

I know judges and DA. They are so willing, so they can show the record of the number of PRO awarded and number of DV conviction to keep their jobs for the next election. I wonder if the judicial system is meted out objectively. But we are not living in the dream world. We have to live with the reality.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2011 Feb 3, 2:43am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Thomas,

I agree with the assumption that this one is over priced and Ken guy is a real sleeze bag. But let's get the fact straight here. The land was purchased at $1.4 million, and they built the house on 2008 at the square feet of about 3500. 3500X$300/ft^2= $1.05million spent on building this property. I know $300/ft^2 is a little too much on the flat land like this, but I am giving the benefit of doubt. So if this house is new, it could fetch up to $2.4 million. It is not new. The land value is more than likely less than what it was @2006, so it is more like $1million. So adding the value of the building would make this property at around the generous $1.6 to 1.8 million at the most.

Now the reality check. Can you really sell this house near $2million? I doubt it. You can't practically get any type of loan with that kind of balance these days. So you have to have a pretty good chunk of cash. Having said this, I am sure there are a few suckers from overseas assuming every listing is a bargain without the due diligence. I have seen this happen. There are few houses that are sold at more than $4 million around here. Of course, they are valued at 15 to 20% less than the purchase price of less than 1 year.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2011 Mar 18, 8:12am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

I think the simple fact is that the Japan Government is not hiding anything, but they
simply don't know what is going on either. You can buy a Geiger
counter anywhere in Japan. If there is unsafe level of radiation at
the evacuation site, the journalists will make a stink about it.
After all, mass media feeds on sensationalism. Remember mass
hysteria and panic sell. If the media is not making a big deal by now,
I think it is not big deal.

Or did I miss any news? Otherwise, I will not be a part of mass hysteria.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2011 Mar 18, 8:55am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

terri,

Don't worry that there are a few journalists with death wish within
a radius of 20 miles. Don't underestimate their insatiable thirst for
sensationalism. I just watched the media interviewing people
who evacuated to the radius of 20 miles.

How can you stay informed, when we don't even get the info?

So you believe everything media said about Toyota, too?

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2011 Mar 18, 9:05am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

simchaland,

So there is a conspiracy, if there is no info coming out?

It simply means that there is no new info. better or worse.
Why read into it more than what it is? I am in California,
and we are probably getting radiation from Japan. But
what can we do? Evacuate to New York? It is happening
more than 5000 miles away. You honestly think
there is an immediate danger, because our government is
less trustworthy than our media?

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2011 Mar 19, 6:14am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

simchaland,

Yup, I guess you have to take what media says or government says
with a grain of salt. I see media as the boy in the "boy who cried wolf."
I am one of those who is tired of their sensationalism and their tendency
to stir mass hysteria. But you know it sells.

Sure, less and infrequent information can strike fear. But I am not sure
if we would even get new news every hour in the situation like this.
I would be skeptical if there is a new development every hour or so. On the
note, the radiation level went down at the plant.

I hope that would be the end of this. For your info. when you fly from Los Angeles
to Tokyo, you will be exposed to 5.5mrem (55uSv), so whatever we get from Japan
which is 5000 miles away will have no impact at all.

You can always buy a Geiger counter, if you are so concerned. By the way,
the radiation you get from Japan is so minute, a Geiger counter won't even detect
it. You need to sample the air for the sign of radioisotope like, Xe or He. I doubt
iodine or cesium radioisotope will actually get to US or even Hawaii.
Especially now the reactors seem to be under control.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2011 Mar 31, 7:05am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

This sounds familiar. The Chase stuck me with $40 penalty and interest.
I didn't for some reason receive a bill for the month which they changed
from Washington Mutual to Chase. So I called them thinking they should
forgive me for this one time. They said NO. Not even for the first time.
They said it is my responsibility to keep up the payment. I pay all the
balance every month, and this is what Chase does to me.

Out of anger, I called them three times to their toll free number and
kept them on the phone for a while I got tired of getting pissed off. I
am still pissed.

I thought about going out for a shopping spree of about $10K and default just
out of anger. But I am still looking to buy a house, and I don't want my
credit ruined. So my only recourse is to talk about my incident.

Oh, and one foreclosure I was looking to purchase. I rescind my offer
after learning I had to deal with Chase. I thought about using court
injunction to delay the sale of this property. But I didn't, cause I would
also be wasting my time going to court. I am still thinking about the
ways to screw Chase legally without the risk to me. Maybe it is time
I should just forget about it and just resort to occasional ranting.

Anyone has a good idea to screw Chase, please let me know.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2011 Apr 1, 7:56am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

oo,

The investors are back in full swing again. And FHA only covers around
$400K, and you have to pay 5% interest. If you borrow more, then
you obviously have to pay more interest. These investors have cash.
If they make 10% profit within a year, it is an outperforming investment.

This is a bad news for buyers as this will increase the price of housing.
Therefore I have a gut feeling the price of housing is about to rebound,
even though all the data point otherwise. I wish those guys burn
in hell for starting the first housing bubble in the first place. We should
boycott buying any properties from a flipper.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2011 Apr 3, 3:10pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

The money does not do anything to the economy unless it is spent. If the housing
price is too high, eventually you will reach the point that nobody is buying.
Then the housing market is not really contributing to the growth of economy.
It is better to keep the housing price relatively consistent to the average annual
income. Or lower in this case. When our economy is healthy and growing, it
will also stimulate the housing price. I know the US government is trying so
hard to keep inflating the price of housing. But it is really hurting our economy.
Forcing the buyer to take the higher housing price by offering $8000 tax credit
was ultimate stupidity on both the US Government and the buyers.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2011 Apr 6, 8:18am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Seems pretty simple. Cause we need to balance our budget, and the budget cut
alone is not going to do it. EU nation has less progressive tax system than ours?
That's laughable. Monaco is about the only country in Europe that is less progressive.
Majority of the EU countries has a tax system design to rape the middle income earners.

Oh, wait, our tax system does that much better. And Republicans are working
to make it even better for the high income earners.

The question should be "does high income earners really need this tax reduction?"
Sure. but at the cost of our nation and our public school system? My take is that
our government has invested the tax money on my future, maybe the us government
deserves the cut of my pay check. Maybe not. At this stage, I really don't care,
cause higher tax or lower tax really won't impact my life style much anyway.
But why volunteer to pay more tax, when the Republicans are already working
to reduce my tax?

But I am concerned about our nation. If our nation's economy does not do too well,
then my money will be worth less in the future.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2011 Apr 11, 9:09am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Where is Iwack?

The temporary lift of market by the tax stimulus was an illusion. I think this was
just a part of continuing dip started some time in 2007 to 2008. So would we
really call this a double dip, then? So is this a tax reduction mirage? I think
I want my tax money back.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2011 Apr 19, 8:06am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Can you imagine these houses used to be sold at much higher prices? Hard to
fathom this is not a big joke.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2011 Apr 20, 4:22pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Realistic,

I don't care to tell investors how to use their money. I resent the fact their money
game is inflating the price. I can't help what I feel. A same thing with the fact
that the price of gasoline is going up due largely to the increased demand but
also partly by the money game. Oh and do not forget, we have printed
too much US$. But that's another story.

Let's get back to the main topic. The main topic is that we, first time buyers, didn't
choose to stay away. We were simply shoved away by the investors.

  Nobody   ignore (0)   2011 Apr 21, 4:57pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

I don't have a huge resentment toward flippers/investors who legitimately spend their
effort fixing the property and sell it. Some how, maybe lack of my imagination,
I don't see it as a blatant act of inflating the price of housing. I resent the
fact that some investors just throw money at the housing market just to
inflate the price for their profit.

Here is what I vow to do. If I see any act of flipping with an intent just to inflate
the price of housing, I will just walk away. I hope some of you here will also be
wise enough to boycott the flippers and reckless investors. But if everyone does it,
the housing price will bottom out much faster, also.

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions