Jersey Girl wrote:Haven't made a house payment in 26 years. So screw you guys who think I'm stupid.
I certainly don't think you're stupid for that. In your day home ownership was a great investment. I think it's still a good investment if you have the 20% down payment, live in an area where the homeowner's insurance isn't outrageously high, and plan to work there the rest of your life.
In my day? Really? What day was that? Is that the excuse you're using?
How do you think your life has been less advantaged than ours?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Some Schmo wrote:Majax strikes as the kind of guy who thinks 10x12=120,000.
I know in the Gulf Shores AL homeowner's insurance for a property valued at ~150k costs about ~$60/month.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
In my day? Really? What day was that? Is that the excuse you're using?
How do you think your life has been less advantaged than ours?
I'm not saying my life has been less advantaged. I'm just saying that buying a home was a better investment then than it is now. Before 2008 people didn't have to pay PMI if they didn't have a 20% down payment. People point to low interest rates now compared to then but that's really not what makes owning a home expensive anymore. In my view the people who walked away from their mortgages made it more expensive for the rest of us to own a home. Hurricane Katrina set a bad precedent as well when the government paid for the flooded homes of homeowners who neglected to purchase flood insurance. It appears the government has not repeated it's mistake with the rains this past summer in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The people who didn't buy flood insurance will be getting no more than a low interest loan to fund their loss. That's how it should be.
“There were mothers who took this [Rodney King LA riots] as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes ... They are not crooks.”
This liberal would be about socializing . . . uh, umm. . . . Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies.
Majax wrote: The people who didn't buy flood insurance will be getting no more than a low interest loan to fund their loss. That's how it should be.
I acknowledge there is some justice in that position.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
I acknowledge there is some justice in that position.
When you talk to them about it they say, "We didn't think we needed it because we didn't live in a flood zone."
First you don't know where the water is going to pool the first big rains after new road, bridge, and building construction is completed. Second if you were in a flood zone B, the flood insurance should have only been $400/year. Some people in New Orleans pay $6500/year in flood insurance alone for a $300k house. That's in addition to their homeowner's insurance.
“There were mothers who took this [Rodney King LA riots] as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes ... They are not crooks.”
This liberal would be about socializing . . . uh, umm. . . . Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies.
Maxine Waters wrote:When you talk to them about it they say, "We didn't think we needed it because we didn't live in a flood zone."
First you don't know where the water is going to pool the first big rains after new road, bridge, and building construction is completed. Second if you were in a flood zone B, the flood insurance should have only been $400/year. Some people in New Orleans pay $6500/year in flood insurance alone for a $300k house. That's in addition to their homeowner's insurance.
I have no argument with that reality either. Those are actually reasonably stated points.
Last edited by Guest on Sun Jan 22, 2017 12:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
Flood insurance is a good (the best) mechanism to build in the real risks of owning a piece of property in a particular area. That's why I'm strongly opposed to government subsidizing people building in risky areas by paying for their uninsured flood damages. It's tragic, but you if you take away market mechanisms for people to accurately assess risk/benefit decisions, then people will make risky decisions and compound the tragedy.
Both the amount and fluctuation of home owner's insurance prices you are saying you pay is crazy Ajax. Live somewhere else. Preferably somewhere where insurance companies don't think your house is flood-damage waiting to happen.
Global warming is compounding this problem in some areas, notably including LA. I'd be perfectly fine with class action lawsuits against greenhouse gas emitters to force them to pay for damages, but that's not politically viable at the moment.
Both the amount and fluctuation of home owner's insurance prices you are saying you pay is crazy Ajax. Live somewhere else.
You're right. But it was 70 degrees and beautiful this January afternoon. I hated winter growing up. I can see why people hate to give it up down here.
“There were mothers who took this [Rodney King LA riots] as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes ... They are not crooks.”
This liberal would be about socializing . . . uh, umm. . . . Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies.
EAllusion wrote:Flood insurance is a good (the best) mechanism to build in the real risks of owning a piece of property in a particular area. That's why I'm strongly opposed to government subsidizing people building in risky areas by paying for their uninsured flood damages. It's tragic, but you if you take away market mechanisms for people to accurately assess risk/benefit decisions, then people will make risky decisions and compound the tragedy.
Both the amount and fluctuation of home owner's insurance prices you are saying you pay is crazy Ajax. Live somewhere else. Preferably somewhere where insurance companies don't think your house is flood-damage waiting to happen.
I don't know of any location on this planet that can't have some type of natural disaster(IE; Oklahoma now exceeds California in number of earthquakes). Risk factor is another issue. I have water damage insurance in case my water heater breaks. Thankfully I've never had to use that insurance.
