|
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com... "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message nk.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote: (snip) He seems to be advocating that the government "fix" consumer's purchasing habits so that the local stores stay in business. First, please don't assume what anyone's position is, Dee. Jim made a specific comment and I was responding to that specific comment alone, not the topic as a whole. My response was an explanation of the process at play as I see it, not a "fix" of any kind. Second, I'm not really "advocating" anything at all. There isn't enough of us here in this newsgroup to even do so. If I wanted to advocate something, I would do so in a much more "audience rich" environment. Instead, we're simply discussing another one of the many topics we routinely discuss in this newsgroup. Please note I did NOT assume anything. I did not state that you ARE advocating that but that it SEEMS that you are. There is a difference. I.e. the statements in your posts can lead the reader to that conclusion although the position is not definitively stated. Why bother to enter the discussion if you are not advocating your position (or conversely playing "devil's advocate")? The size of the audience should not matter. You never know in what venue you may find a person or group of persons who have the ability to initiate and/or implement change. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE I agree wholeheartedly... and I think I've stated so. You, Dee, seem to be as disconcerted by Dwight's contribution to this topic as I have been. Kim W5TIT |
"Mike Coslo" wrote
First choice goes to married vets Second choice goes to vets Third choice is married. I think you were guaranteed any job you wanted if you were a black female disabled Vietnam vet with a Spanish surname. grin 73, Hans, K0HB |
Dee D. Flint wrote:
This would be the ruination of the economy. The government is not, never has been, and never will be competent to manage the economy. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE But that never stops them from trying. |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message k.net... You seriously need to climb off your high horse, Kim. Who in the heck asked you to "help" anyone in this newsgroup? I came to this newsgroup to discuss various topics - not be lectured by you with a mandate to drop my opinions in favor of yours. So, if you're sitting around waiting for that to happen, you're going to be one very, very, tired old woman long before there's even a glimmer of hope. While I normally disagree with a great many of Kim's posts. Here she is fundamentally correct. Consumers do have the choice to be informed if they really want to. If they don't want to go to that much work, then it is their own problem. Government should NOT be doing your research for you. I certainly don't want MY taxes to go for the checks on goods and information dissemination that you seem to think the government should do for you. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee, the one thing I think I can say about you--and, to tell you the truth I attribute it to the fact that you are a woman and I just plain believe that women think a lot more logically most of the time--is that whenever you and I have "disagreed" there's never been the exchange that we witness from some of (your welcome Jim) men here in this newsgroup. You may disagree with a lot of *how* I say something, but I think you and I probably would agree on a lot more than you may realize. I am a very "tough love" kind of person. I spent too much time in my life feeling sorry for, or empathetic for, people who had no desire whatsoever to lift themselves up and change what makes them miserable--those that have the capability and ability to do so, that is. So, that having been said--it seems very apparent to me that Dwight has some ideas for which he has no real basis in fact. (And, that's not to say that my ideas are all based in fact--but I at least admit it). And, I can't believe that he expects people to accept--let alone agree--with him that we are too busy and stupid to do our own research to make ethical purchase decisions; yet we should warm up to the idea that government and business can be held to a high enough standard (uh, even though we are too busy and stupid to research what the standard should be) that they can "do it for us." And, that's not even bringing into the equation that I've seen Dwight rail against the "liberals" for big government principles--yet here he is espousing to a huge government *and* rolling the corporate world up into it. The "conservatives" woud have a field day for that blessing!! I agree with you--and I'll even take it further than how you put it to include Dwight's ill-fated thoughts: if consumers in a "free" society are too stupid, too lazy, or too apathetic, or too *whatever* to take it upon themselves to be informed, then they deserve whatever they get--including a government such as what would occur if we all thought like Dwight. By the way...you've probably been astute enough to see this. Do you notice that I've told someone they are right? I try to always remember to tell people whether I agree or disagree with something they say--but I try never to presume they are right or wrong. Whatever they think is right for them, correct? ;) Kim W5TIT The above should read: "Do you notice that I've rarely if ever told someone they are right?" Kim W5TIT |
In article , "Kim "
writes: "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message nk.net... As consumers, as Americans, we have to demand government manage the economy better (as I've previously outlined). This would be the ruination of the economy. The government is not, never has been, and never will be competent to manage the economy. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE HERE HERE That's all well and good, but you're missing a plain, simple fact: You haven't defined what "manage the economy" means. If you define it as Soviet-style central economic planning, then almost anyone with any sense will agree that it's a recipe for economic disaster, as demonstrated by what happened in the USSR. (Largest country in the world, huge amounts of some of the best if not THE best farmland on earth, and after 70+ years of total control they can't even feed themselves?) But if you define it as "help things go well", it gets a lot murkier. For example, in the days following 9-11, the Feds helped out the airline industry in a big way with low interest loans. They were concerned that the loss of business in the wake of the events of that terrible day would have caused the collapse of several major airlines. Was that good management of the economy or not? Or look at your federal income taxes. Those of us who are home owners and who meet certain criteria can deduct home mortgage interest and real estate taxes on up to 2 residences. This effectively reduces the cost of buying/owning a home. Would you take that deduction away? Doing so would almost certainly slow down home sales and construction, and reduce property values all over the country. I'm old enough to remember when *all* consumer interest and sales taxes were deductible on your income taxes if certain criteria were met. That deduction pushed consumer spending because it reduced the effective cost of buying on time. It encouraged people to go into debt, particularly in inflationary times, because they could pay for today's fun with tomorrow's less-valuable dollars, *and* deduct the interest and tax costs. But those deductions were removed in order to "get the government off your back" (and pump more money into the coffers without 'raising' taxes). Or look where your taxes are spent. NASA's launch facilities for manned space flights are in Florida - because the orbital mechanics and safety considerations make Florida about the optimum place for a launch facility located in CONUS. But the manned flight center is in Houston Texas - because that's were LBJ was from. How many extra billions of dollars that contributed nothing to the space flight efforts have been spent over the decades because the two facilities are so far apart? No matter what the government does about the economy, the effects are widespread and have the effect, wanted or not, of "managing" the economy in some way or another. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message nk.net... "Kim W5TIT" wrote: heh I bet Dwight couldn't handle the idea that he's probably more manipulated by subliminal advertising than the "average joe." :) Kim, you really have no idea what we were talking about, do you? Before you sidetracked the discussion with this type of nonsense, we were talking about the economy and economic-related issues and information, not general consumer product information. Therefore, nothing I've said about that (the economy) has anything whatsoever to do with "subliminal advertising" or anything of the sort. Do at least try to figure out the subject being discussed before going off on one of your silly rants. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Larry, meet Dwight. Dwight, meet Larry. Dwight, welcome to a perfect vision of yourself... Kim W5TIT And everyone else meet W5TWIT, otherwise known as 'hug and chalk'. Dan/W4NTI |
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: Looking at repay periods or relative costs isn't really the way to go either. I think it is - IF you allow for other factors as mentioned below. You have to include a comparison of the features that you get for that cost. People simply want more on their "starter" houses and cars. *Some* people... Today's starter house has relatively more features than those of the past. For example, the typical tract house had no cabinets of any type in the bathroom at that time. The homeowner added them later as time and money permitted. They did not have air conditioning. Now you just about can't sell any new home, even low end starter one, unless it has A/C and so on. If you're talking about new homes, I agree in general, because the developers/builders have a pretty set idea of "what people want" and that's what they build. Of course if you have a new house built to your specification, you can get almost anything that meets code. Comparing the past to the present is very difficult. Too much has changed and it's like comparing apples to oranges. Sometimes. But you can make comparisons based on intelligent adjustments. For example, the house I'm in now was built in 1950 or 1951 and I moved here in 1999. At that time it still had the original gravity heater and no AC. Also no dishwasher. In fact, it was not substantially different from when it was built - just well-maintained. To me it's a "new" house because it was built after WW2 and uses essentially the same techniques as new houses today, vs. the older techniques of houses I've owned previously (built in 1923 and 1900). In 2000 I had a good HVAC contractor install a new heating/AC system. Cost me just under $7000 and worth every penny. The cost of the new system was figured (mentally) into the price of the house when I bought it. In 2001 I put in a dishwasher (DIY) and again that cost was figured (mentally) into the price of the house when I bought it. Same type of thing can be applied to almost any house. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
In article m, "Dee D. Flint"
writes: If "Ma's Diner" isn't selling what I want then I'm not going to buy regardless of small store, large chain or whatever. Works for me! I thought however the original post was Dwight's not yours. He seems to be advocating that the government "fix" consumer's purchasing habits so that the local stores stay in business. I don't read it that way at all, but I could be mistaken. I think Dwight's simply calling attention to the fact that there are some economic trends going on that don't bode well for the economic future of our country - long term or short term. While I think government has a role to play in changing those trends, I don't think the whole thing can be left up to them to "fix". 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
This would be the ruination of the economy. The government is not, never has been, and never will be competent to manage the economy. The government has managed the economy in some form or another since the very beginning. And, in spite of what you say, this country with that government has done pretty darn well over those many years. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
(snip) So, that having been said--it seems very apparent to me that Dwight has some ideas for which he has no real basis in fact. (And, that's not to say that my ideas are all based in fact- -but I at least admit it). And, I can't believe that he expects people to accept--let alone agree-- with him that we are too busy and stupid to do our own research to make ethical purchase decisions; yet we should warm up to the idea that government and business can be held to a high enough standard (uh, even though we are too busy and stupid to research what the standard should be) that they can "do it for us." And, that's not even bringing into the equation that I've seen Dwight rail against the "liberals" for big government principles--yet here he is espousing to a huge government *and* rolling the corporate world up into it. The "conservatives" woud have a field day for that blessing!! (snip) Kim, I've repeatedly said I don't have all the answers, am offering my opinions only, that I don't "expect" anything from anybody, and that this is a simple discussion (not a proclamation or mandate for all to agree). Now, either you haven't read that (which means you have no idea what I've said), can't understand it (too stupid), or are so determined to argue you don't really care what I've actually said. I've also repeatedly told you that my comments were limited solely to the economy, not "ethical purchase decisions," the environment (Exxon), or whatever other issues you want to throw in. In spite of that, you still try to twist my words to apply to other things. I've also never said consumers are "too busy and stupid" to do research. What I've actually said is that information is not that easily available for consumers to do that research (economic research, not anything else) and that such research is simply too massive to truly expect consumers to do. You've offered nothing substantial to challenge that assesment. I'm also not "espousing to a huge government." What I've said is that government should pass regulations to insure consumers have better access to the information they need to make wise economic purchasing decisions, that government better monitor business to insure that information is correct, that government offer the information they collected to consumers in condensed form, that immigration be better managed, that curbs should be put on credit, that corporate profits be capped, rules changed to prevent factories and industry moving overseas, and so on. Even if you don't agree, none of these are exactly radical new ideas - all have been widely discussed for many years. This is the last time I will say all of this. If you continue to misrepresent my position after this, then I'll assume you're doing so simply to be dishonest and will respond accordingly. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
But, you've already stated, Dwight, that people [paraphrasing] are too stupid and don't have the time to research their shopping products. (snip) No, Kim, you're not paraphrasing - you're flat out lying. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
Larry, meet Dwight. Dwight, meet Larry. Dwight, welcome to a perfect vision of yourself... Kim, I would introduce you to someone like yourself, but I simply haven't met anyone that stupid and dishonest yet. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
Please note I did NOT assume anything. I did not state that you ARE advocating that but that it SEEMS that you are. There is a difference. I.e. the statements in your posts can lead the reader to that conclusion although the position is not definitively stated. Why bother to enter the discussion if you are not advocating your position (or conversely playing "devil's advocate")? (snip) It shouldn't be that difficult to figure out, Dee. People do it all the time - talk to friends or sposes about events half way around the world that has no direct bearing on any of them, talk about criminal trials when they have influence whatsoever on that trial, talk about what they might do if they had a million dollars, talk about the economy when they have no real intent at the moment to do anything about it, and so on. It's simply conversation. Few are ever 100 percent right or wrong in these discussions. Instead, they hear different perspectives, re-enforce some views, change other views, and hopefully walk away slightly entertained by the experience. (snip) The size of the audience should not matter. You never know in what venue you may find a person or group of persons who have the ability to initiate and/or implement change. I wish there was someone like that in this newsroup. I'm sure we could all give him or her an earful. However, after six or seven years in this newsgroup, I haven't seen even a hint of such a person. As for the regular newsgroup participants (including the guesstimated lurkers), we're not really large enough in numbers to impact even a small town's elections (much less impact national issues). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message ink.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote: (snip) The size of the audience should not matter. You never know in what venue you may find a person or group of persons who have the ability to initiate and/or implement change. I wish there was someone like that in this newsroup. I can initiate change, but don't expect me to put my money into your project. Pony up, and I'll see what I can do. Like the ARRL, I work on a sliding scale: The more money you send, the better results you can expect. Charles Brabham, N5PVL |
"charlesb" wrote:
I can initiate change, but don't expect me to put my money into your project. Pony up, and I'll see what I can do. Like the ARRL, I work on a sliding scale: The more money you send, the better results you can expect. LOL. I just made the car payment. How much change can I get for the twenty bucks remaining? Twenty-five cents in change? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message ink.net... "charlesb" wrote: I can initiate change, but don't expect me to put my money into your project. Pony up, and I'll see what I can do. Like the ARRL, I work on a sliding scale: The more money you send, the better results you can expect. LOL. I just made the car payment. How much change can I get for the twenty bucks remaining? Twenty-five cents in change? I may initiate change, but seldom do I ever return any! ;-D Charles Brabham, N5PVL |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net... I've also never said consumers are "too busy and stupid" to do research. Well, that's true. You never said consumers are "too busy and stupid." I specifically stated that I was paraphrasing what you actually said: "Consumers in general have neither the business awareness or economic awareness to make those types of decisions on their own. And they also certainly don't have the time or money to fully research an industry each time they want to go shopping for something." Maybe, Dwight, you can put what you said a different way, so that it doesn't sound like you are thinking consumers are too busy and stupid. Could ya do that for me? I don't know who it is you think is not reading and understanding your posts, Dwight. I think I've been fairly accurate. If I misrepresented your position on exactly what it is you are saying, I'd like to see what it is you actually intended the message to say. Kim W5TIT |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net... This is the last time I will say all of this. If you continue to misrepresent my position after this, then I'll assume you're doing so simply to be dishonest and will respond accordingly. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) Yeah, Dwight, that's me...sitting around thinking of ways I can be dishonest. I think you're just up against a wall on this one and you're choosing the only way out you know...which is certainly your choice. At least one other person who's posted comments to this thread has had the same interpretation of what you're saying...and you've not been as "upset" about those interpretations. And, I daresay there's been two, but not so sure about how it is that Jim has interpreted your comments. I've just been a whole lot less diplomatic and far more blunt. So, whatever... Kim W5TIT |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net... "Kim W5TIT" wrote: Larry, meet Dwight. Dwight, meet Larry. Dwight, welcome to a perfect vision of yourself... Kim, I would introduce you to someone like yourself, but I simply haven't met anyone that stupid and dishonest yet. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) Aw, now this is real cute and grown up, Dwight... Kim W5TIT |
In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: You know, thinking back, I believe I was actually happier back then. I didn't have much, but I don't remember feeling anything was missing in my life. Perhaps I'm getting too old to remember things back then clearly. I think it's something else, Dwight. I think a big part of happiness is baased on our expectations vs. our reality. And a lot of us Americans allow ourselves to develop tremendously high expectations, and then aren't so happy when they aren't met. The person who expected to be living in a 4000 sf house by a certain age may be quite disappointed that they are now past that age and living in a 2500 sf house, and they're maxed out (can't really afford to move or add on). Never mind that the 2500 sf house is a nice place, etc., etc. (Just one example 'cause we've been talking about houses). Maybe I'll start a late mid-life crisis and go looking for those youthful days again. I remember this one girl... Sometimes it's a good thing that 'the one that got away', did. Friend of mine says: "To a large extent, we're as happy as we allow ourselves to be" 73 de Jim, N2EY |
charlesb wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message ink.net... "charlesb" wrote: I can initiate change, but don't expect me to put my money into your project. Pony up, and I'll see what I can do. Like the ARRL, I work on a sliding scale: The more money you send, the better results you can expect. LOL. I just made the car payment. How much change can I get for the twenty bucks remaining? Twenty-five cents in change? I may initiate change, but seldom do I ever return any! ;-D Keep the change as payment for the quote of the week, Charles! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA |
Mike Coslo wrote in message t...
Brian wrote: Perhaps we accept more debt today (as a ratio to income) than ever before. Perhaps "we" will get what we deserve for running our finances so close to the edge. 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - Some do. And that's why this country fears lay-offs so much. There is so very little slop in one's income to expenses that even a couple of months out of work spells ruination. No rainy-day accounts either. But bankruptcy is easy to get, so everyone else ends up paying for their houses, SUVs, and big-screen TVs. |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
Maybe, Dwight, you can put what you said a different way, so that it doesn't sound like you are thinking consumers are too busy and stupid. Could ya do that for me? No. I've clarified what I said at least five or six times. I have no intention of doing so again. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"charlesb" wrote:
I may initiate change, but seldom do I ever return any! ;-D Well said. :-) Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"N2EY" wrote:
I think it's something else, Dwight. I think a big part of happiness is based on our expectations vs. our reality. And a lot of us Americans allow ourselves to develop tremendously high expectations, and then aren't so happy when they aren't met. The person who expected to be living in a 4000 sf house by a certain age may be quite disappointed that (snip) In my case, I've never stayed in one place long enough to have those type of expectations. I've traveled most of my life (both as a kid and later as an adult). I'm just in a mood right now to settle down somewhere. The problem is that I haven't figured out where to settle down at. I haven't lived in one place long enough to really call it home. My family is spread out across the country (the same with my wife's family). Because of all that, we never get to the point of thinking about a house - we're too busy looking around the country for an area. And that is perhaps where our expectations are simply too high. Sometimes it's a good thing that 'the one that got away', did. Been there and done that. We went across the country a few years ago looking up old friends and the places we once lived. We were shocked at the many changes (in the people and the places). After that, we decided not to do so again with the remaining people and places - it's simply best to remember them in our minds the way they were. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Brian" wrote in message
... Mike Coslo wrote in message t... Brian wrote: Perhaps we accept more debt today (as a ratio to income) than ever before. Perhaps "we" will get what we deserve for running our finances so close to the edge. 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - Some do. And that's why this country fears lay-offs so much. There is so very little slop in one's income to expenses that even a couple of months out of work spells ruination. No rainy-day accounts either. But bankruptcy is easy to get, so everyone else ends up paying for their houses, SUVs, and big-screen TVs. I couldn't agree more on that, Brian! For sure, as they would say. I am shopping for a new home and my husband and I have decided what we are comfortable spending, what we need and desire in a new place, what kind of interest rate we'll accept, and what payment we want. Know what? One mortgage company so far has told us, "you have a lot of room to move," meaning that we can get into something much bigger and more expensive than we are looking for. They seem shocked that we aren't interested in "maxxing" out our limit!! And, you're right about bankruptcy, too. When I said to a lender that we weren't comfortable with the expense they were suggesting, they said we could afford it and didn't know what the problem was. I told them I think about things like potentially losing my job or my husband losing his. The come back was that we always have bankruptcy available!!! Good grief... Kim W5TIT |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net... "Kim W5TIT" wrote: Maybe, Dwight, you can put what you said a different way, so that it doesn't sound like you are thinking consumers are too busy and stupid. Could ya do that for me? No. I've clarified what I said at least five or six times. I have no intention of doing so again. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) Yeah, it's always the easy way out... Kim W5TIT |
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Kim W5TIT" wrote: Maybe, Dwight, you can put what you said a different way, so that it doesn't sound like you are thinking consumers are too busy and stupid. Could ya do that for me? No. I've clarified what I said at least five or six times. I have no intention of doing so again. Might as well give it up Dwight, I find it futile to discuss class or good taste with someone who choses a call sign like Kim's. |
In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "Dee D. Flint" wrote: This would be the ruination of the economy. The government is not, never has been, and never will be competent to manage the economy. The government has managed the economy in some form or another since the very beginning. And, in spite of what you say, this country with that government has done pretty darn well over those many years. Agreed! But has the country's economy done well because of the government's influence, or in spite of that influence? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: I am shopping for a new home and my husband and I have decided what we are comfortable spending, what we need and desire in a new place, what kind of interest rate we'll accept, and what payment we want. Weren't you folks having a place built, Kim? Or are we talking about the same thing? Know what? One mortgage company so far has told us, "you have a lot of room to move," meaning that we can get into something much bigger and more expensive than we are looking for. They seem shocked that we aren't interested in "maxxing" out our limit!! Sure. I've encountered that, too, in all sorts of transactions, Their focus is very narrow. And their fees and commissions are based on the selling price. And note that reselling mortgages is pretty standard, so the people who sold you the house and mortgage won't be holding the bag if you do default. And, you're right about bankruptcy, too. When I said to a lender that we weren't comfortable with the expense they were suggesting, they said we could afford it and didn't know what the problem was. Of course not. It's not their money or their house! I told them I think about things like potentially losing my job or my husband losing his. The come back was that we always have bankruptcy available!!! Now *that's* a new one! ;-) Point is that the lenders &tc won't protect us from ourselves. *We* have to do that. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "N2EY" wrote: I think it's something else, Dwight. I think a big part of happiness is based on our expectations vs. our reality. And a lot of us Americans allow ourselves to develop tremendously high expectations, and then aren't so happy when they aren't met. The person who expected to be living in a 4000 sf house by a certain age may be quite disappointed that (snip) In my case, I've never stayed in one place long enough to have those type of expectations. Then the house example wasn't a good one for what you are talking about. Then consider the fan example. Your expectation is that finding a fan which will not wear out in X hours of use should not require a wide search. You expect to be able to find one locally without a lot of hassle. But you can't, and that's a disappointment. Same principle, different specifics. I've traveled most of my life (both as a kid and later as an adult). I'm just in a mood right now to settle down somewhere. The problem is that I haven't figured out where to settle down at. I haven't lived in one place long enough to really call it home. My family is spread out across the country (the same with my wife's family). Because of all that, we never get to the point of thinking about a house - we're too busy looking around the country for an area. And that is perhaps where our expectations are simply too high. Could be - what is it that you expect? 73 de Jim, N2EY Sometimes it's a good thing that 'the one that got away', did. Been there and done that. We went across the country a few years ago looking up old friends and the places we once lived. We were shocked at the many changes (in the people and the places). After that, we decided not to do so again with the remaining people and places - it's simply best to remember them in our minds the way they were. |
"N2EY" wrote in message
... In article , "Kim W5TIT" writes: I am shopping for a new home and my husband and I have decided what we are comfortable spending, what we need and desire in a new place, what kind of interest rate we'll accept, and what payment we want. Weren't you folks having a place built, Kim? Or are we talking about the same thing? No, no! We're not having a place built...we are ordering a manufactured home (trailer, whatever-you-want-to-call-it). We are all set with land, and explored building. But, for some reason, neither of us is particularly interested in dealing with having one built (there's not one good experience we've ever had relayed about dealing with builders...LOL). Know what? One mortgage company so far has told us, "you have a lot of room to move," meaning that we can get into something much bigger and more expensive than we are looking for. They seem shocked that we aren't interested in "maxxing" out our limit!! Sure. I've encountered that, too, in all sorts of transactions, Their focus is very narrow. And their fees and commissions are based on the selling price. And note that reselling mortgages is pretty standard, so the people who sold you the house and mortgage won't be holding the bag if you do default. Yep, we've already been told as soon as the "deal is done," the mortgage will be sold. And, you're right about bankruptcy, too. When I said to a lender that we weren't comfortable with the expense they were suggesting, they said we could afford it and didn't know what the problem was. Of course not. It's not their money or their house! Or the accomplishment of having excellent credit! I told them I think about things like potentially losing my job or my husband losing his. The come back was that we always have bankruptcy available!!! Now *that's* a new one! ;-) Point is that the lenders &tc won't protect us from ourselves. *We* have to do that. 73 de Jim, N2EY Precisely what we're doing... Kim W5TIT |
"N2EY" wrote in message
... In article . net, "Dwight Stewart" writes: "Dee D. Flint" wrote: This would be the ruination of the economy. The government is not, never has been, and never will be competent to manage the economy. The government has managed the economy in some form or another since the very beginning. And, in spite of what you say, this country with that government has done pretty darn well over those many years. Agreed! But has the country's economy done well because of the government's influence, or in spite of that influence? 73 de Jim, N2EY I'm not so sure this country's done all that "well." I think it's quite obvious we are all paying for that right now... But, Dwight has other ideas... Kim W5TIT |
"JJ" wrote in message
... Dwight Stewart wrote: "Kim W5TIT" wrote: Maybe, Dwight, you can put what you said a different way, so that it doesn't sound like you are thinking consumers are too busy and stupid. Could ya do that for me? No. I've clarified what I said at least five or six times. I have no intention of doing so again. Might as well give it up Dwight, I find it futile to discuss class or good taste with someone who choses a call sign like Kim's. Yeah, there's few who can handle a woman with good sense... Kim W5TIT |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Brian" wrote in message ... Mike Coslo wrote in message t... Brian wrote: Perhaps we accept more debt today (as a ratio to income) than ever before. Perhaps "we" will get what we deserve for running our finances so close to the edge. 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - Some do. And that's why this country fears lay-offs so much. There is so very little slop in one's income to expenses that even a couple of months out of work spells ruination. No rainy-day accounts either. But bankruptcy is easy to get, so everyone else ends up paying for their houses, SUVs, and big-screen TVs. I couldn't agree more on that, Brian! For sure, as they would say. I am shopping for a new home and my husband and I have decided what we are comfortable spending, what we need and desire in a new place, what kind of interest rate we'll accept, and what payment we want. Know what? One mortgage company so far has told us, "you have a lot of room to move," meaning that we can get into something much bigger and more expensive than we are looking for. They seem shocked that we aren't interested in "maxxing" out our limit!! And, you're right about bankruptcy, too. When I said to a lender that we weren't comfortable with the expense they were suggesting, they said we could afford it and didn't know what the problem was. I told them I think about things like potentially losing my job or my husband losing his. The come back was that we always have bankruptcy available!!! Good grief... They do soooo love their commission, and the more you spend, the more they make. A person is better served by thinking of the real estate agent as their enemy, rather than friend. We went through several agents, one I left after telling them if they showed us one more house that cost more than what we were looking for I was walking. Yup, the next house was more! There should be an i.q. portion of that test they take! - Mike KB3EIA - |
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 02:12:06 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote:
So you're saying we should go to "Ma's Diner" for the sole purpose of keeping them in business?? I don't think so. There are/were several "Ma's Diner" level establishments that we patronize(d) for just that reason. Some of them didn't survive, but that wasn't because we didn't go there. OTOH, there are several "successful" enterprises that we just wouldn't patronize - Wal-Mart leads that list. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message ink.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote: This would be the ruination of the economy. The government is not, never has been, and never will be competent to manage the economy. The government has managed the economy in some form or another since the very beginning. And, in spite of what you say, this country with that government has done pretty darn well over those many years. No it's more a case of the economy has done well despite the government. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message .net... On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 02:12:06 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote: So you're saying we should go to "Ma's Diner" for the sole purpose of keeping them in business?? I don't think so. There are/were several "Ma's Diner" level establishments that we patronize(d) for just that reason. Some of them didn't survive, but that wasn't because we didn't go there. OTOH, there are several "successful" enterprises that we just wouldn't patronize - Wal-Mart leads that list. I would go if they had a product I wanted but see no reason to do so if they are not selling the products that I want. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:49 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com