|
|
12-03-2017, 02:20 PM
|
#196
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,036
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FantasticDan
|
Clocker is right on this. The only thing Krugman has said correct in the past 8 years is we should sell long term paper instead of short. That's it... And anyone who understands economics agrees.
|
|
|
12-03-2017, 03:50 PM
|
#197
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,274
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamDavidson
.....This, simply, IS a transfer from poor to rich.
|
What exactly are the poor transferring? It's hard to cut taxes from negative to more negative.
|
|
|
12-03-2017, 04:13 PM
|
#198
|
Bombardier
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,038
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruffian1
In my state , and most that I am aware of, mortgage insurance is only for people that have put less than 20% down OR put less than 20% and have not yet made enough principle payments to get the principle down to 20% of the cost of the house at the time of the loan.
Once you DO get to that amount, NO BANK will tell you that you do NOT have to pay it anymore, YOU MUST CONTACT THEM and TELL THEM to stop billing you for probably 80.00 -200.00 per month, depending on the cost of the house.
By law, they are required to stop adding mortgage insurance (or PMI) on to your monthly payments when you hit 20% BUT ONLY if you request them to do so.
If you only put 5% down when you bought your house, in about year 10 if you did not pay any principle down since you started owning your house you will be at the 20% mark.
PLEASE check where you stand and be fully aware of this. Otherwise, your banking institution will be more than happy to collect 80.00-200.00 dollars per month from you for the next 20 years past when it should have stopped.
That will come to anywhere from 9,200.00 to 48,000.00 dollars or more, estimated. ( I do not know what you paid for your house)
I will go out on a limb and assume you could do something more with that money than give it away to that fine upstanding banking institution.
If this helps just one person, writing this was well worth doing.
I sure hope that this helps you or anyone that does not know this.
|
Dammit, I wrote insurance instead of INTEREST. Interest is what I meant. I do not have have PMI as I cam into my loan at much more than 20% LTV and have gained equity since then. I started on the last page when I was catching up on this thread, and wondered why the hell there was bickering about PMI. It sucks to find out that it is my fault Shit. Sorry about that everybody.
__________________
They don't think it be like it is, but it do. ~O.Gamble
|
|
|
12-03-2017, 04:15 PM
|
#199
|
Bombardier
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,038
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker
Congress is in session for two more weeks, then their year is over. They have no major accomplishments this year. Trump has gotten none of his legislative program passed. This is a last-gasp effort to look productive and to have something to brag about as they go into campaign mode for the 2018 elections.
|
Exactly, and it's too bad Clocker. It really is. Our Congress is pathetic and has been for many years. Thats liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat, and everything to the far right, left and in between.
__________________
They don't think it be like it is, but it do. ~O.Gamble
|
|
|
12-03-2017, 05:41 PM
|
#200
|
gelding
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker
This is the guy who thought that Obama walked on water when he and the Dems doubled the debt in 8 years, but GOP deficits are toxic. Sorry, any economic analysis that has his name at the top is a non-starter.
|
It's not his analysis. Sorry if it was too subtle for you.
|
|
|
12-03-2017, 06:12 PM
|
#201
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FantasticDan
It's not his analysis. Sorry if it was too subtle for you.
|
Are these not Krugman's words? Is this not analysis that he is sponsoring as correct?
Quote:
Matt O'Brien dives through the muck of the Tax Foundation "model" so we don't have to. Bottom line: it's nonsense even on their own assumptions; and somehow all the conceptual errors favor tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy
|
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
|
|
|
12-03-2017, 06:13 PM
|
#202
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5,414
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FantasticDan
It's not his analysis. Sorry if it was too subtle for you.
|
I took my last years tax return and re-did them using the proposed numbers from the new tax changes. I'll save 5K. Those are cold hard numbers and I'm as middle class as it gets. That's a hell of a nice tax cut. So honestly, it doesn't matter what some democrat pimp wants to throw out there. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to insert those new
numbers in last years tax return.
|
|
|
12-03-2017, 06:18 PM
|
#203
|
gelding
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker
Are these not Krugman's words? Is this not analysis that he is sponsoring as correct?
|
Yes, but it's not HIS analysis, is it? Which is what you were suggesting..
I know, I know.. if he either writes it or simply recommends it, it must be wrong
|
|
|
12-03-2017, 06:29 PM
|
#204
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FantasticDan
Yes, but it's not HIS analysis, is it? Which is what you were suggesting..
I know, I know.. if he either writes it or simply recommends it, it must be wrong
|
Okay, to nitpick, I was referring to Krugman's opinion, i.e., analysis, of O'Brien's analysis. But writing or recommending, it is still better than a 1:9 favorite that he is wrong, based on his past performances.
That is one reason I didn't read O'Brien's analysis. Another is that it is behind the WaPo pay wall, and I am certainly not going to pay to read the WaPo. But most importantly, the final bill has yet to be written and passed, so any "analysis" is speculation at this point.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
|
|
|
12-03-2017, 06:34 PM
|
#205
|
gelding
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker
That is one reason I didn't read O'Brien's analysis. Another is that it is behind the WaPo pay wall, and I am certainly not going to pay to read the WaPo.
|
I read the entire article from the Twitter link I posted. There was no pay wall, and I'm not a WaPo subscriber.
|
|
|
12-03-2017, 06:46 PM
|
#206
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FantasticDan
I read the entire article from the Twitter link I posted. There was no pay wall, and I'm not a WaPo subscriber.
|
I clicked on your link and got the pay wall. WaPo lets you read a few articles within some time period and then blocks you. I do read some of their stuff, so I must be over my limit right now.
But as I said, I wasn't planning to actually read the whole thing, because the final bill hasn't been written yet.
And I don't have to actually read it to know that Krugman is wrong.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
|
|
|
12-03-2017, 07:48 PM
|
#207
|
Just another Facist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Now in Houston
Posts: 52,615
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by elysiantraveller
I already said where we cut. Our military does not need anything more than the standard spending increases to say otherwise is silly. We face no conventional threats we can't easily handle. We do need infrastructure spending I agree but to say this administration is ANYTHING remotely close to revenue neutral is absurd.
That was my point. We don't really disagree but this plan is garbage if you fall into my demographic.
|
40% of air assets are grounded due to a lack of parts.......
Our military is running on crutches
__________________
WE ARE THE DUMBEST COUNTRY ON THE PLANET!
|
|
|
12-03-2017, 09:30 PM
|
#208
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,036
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustRalph
40% of air assets are grounded due to a lack of parts.......
Our military is running on crutches
|
Because they are being phased out and delays in the F35 program?
|
|
|
12-03-2017, 10:01 PM
|
#209
|
Just another Facist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Now in Houston
Posts: 52,615
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by elysiantraveller
Because they are being phased out and delays in the F35 program?
|
https://www.military.com/daily-news/...-aircraft.html
One example above. Budget constraints is cited in others.
Google around. It’s a disgrace
__________________
WE ARE THE DUMBEST COUNTRY ON THE PLANET!
|
|
|
12-03-2017, 10:46 PM
|
#210
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,036
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustRalph
|
Yeah.
Planned phase out aircraft.
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Rate This Thread |
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|