Dave

I'm currently under contract on a home that needs some work. We thought the lower agreed sale price reflected the costs of need repairs (hvac, water heater, elec, plumbing) but the sale price plus the hvac alone is several thousand higher then then appraised value.

Is this common, or should repair costs plus sale price equal appraised value? Our loan is a standard 20% down 30 yr., fixed rate.

Thanks,

Dave

You know, the weekly Sunday paper inserts of typically 2 or 3 large sheets, printed front and back, full color for a total of 8 to 12 pages. I realize the insertion rate for a newspaper can vary, but what about just the print and paper cost for 100,000 or so?

Now here's the kicker, without violating one of his other campaign promises.....like transparency, plenty of time to read bills, eliminating pork barrel spending, cutting deficits, etc.

We hear prices going through the roof on gold, but why is an old 18k wedding band only worth $150 or so? Where would one go to get $1500/oz, or the market price?

How is this beneficial for the property owner and how is it beneficial for the renter? What happens if the renter leaves early? What are typical reasons that a renter would want a "rent to own" agreement vs. straight sale or just rent?

Thanks.

I'm not talking about those making just over $250k, which are being portrayed as wealthy. In many parts of the country, ie NY and SF, the cost of living necessitates that kind of money to own a home and have a family.

I'm talking about the CEOs with unlimited earning potential making $2 to $200 million per year or more. As far as I can tell, their earnings are based on the performance or profitability of their company. To make a business profitable a CEO has incentives to keep wages down, cut benefits, layoff as many as possible, outsource any function possible (mfg, software development, customer service, etc.) close locations that might be profitable, but not as profitable, etc. These acts not only hurt US Citizens, but also the US Govt as it has significantly decreased the tax base. Beyond the immediate employees of these companies, numerous other companies local to their operations are hurt when these cuts are made.

In return for keeping the masses depressed they earn lottery type money each year, and every year they want more. It seems the majority are insatiable at the cost of the majority of US citizens.

My wife works for a company where the CEO makes $25 million/year. The highest raise they gave to any employee last year was 1%, not enought to keep up with inflation (most employees received no raise). Yet the company beat estimates and paid dividends to stock holders. In return, the CEO makes more in a week then probably 99% of what the employees make in 1 year.

I can't understand how raising taxes on those making over $2 million/year on a sliding scale up to $5 million (with a tax of 90% or so) would be detrimental to growth. I'm not talking about stock market growth, that's been happening and jobs have been disappearing. I'm talking about job growth, and businesses like banks not shelling out all of their earnings to big executives so the banks can weather financial turbulence without govt intervention.

It seems raising taxes on these truly high earners would eliminate the incentive to "screw" everyone else, including the Government.

I'm not talking about those making just over $250k, which are being portrayed as wealthy. In many parts of the country, ie NY and SF, the cost of living necessitates that kind of money to own a home and have a family.

I'm talking about the CEOs with unlimited earning potential making $2 to $200 million per year or more. As far as I can tell, their earnings are based on the performance or profitability of their company. To make a business profitable a CEO has incentives to keep wages down, cut benefits, layoff as many as possible, outsource any function possible (mfg, software development, customer service, etc.) close locations that might be profitable, but not as profitable, etc. These acts not only hurt US Citizens, but also the US Govt as it has significantly decreased the tax base. Beyond the immediate employees of these companies, numerous other companies local to their operations are hurt when these cuts are made.

In return for keeping the masses depressed they earn lottery type money each year, and every year they want more. It seems the majority are insatiable at the cost of the majority of US citizens.

My wife works for a company where the CEO makes $25 million/year. The highest raise they gave to any employee last year was 1%, not enought to keep up with inflation (most employees received no raise). Yet the company beat estimates and paid dividends to stock holders. In return, the CEO makes more in a week then probably 99% of what the employees make in 1 year.

I can't understand how raising taxes on those making over $2 million/year on a sliding scale up to $5 million (with a tax of 90% or so) would be detrimental to growth. I'm not talking about stock market growth, that's been happening and jobs have been disappearing. I'm talking about job growth, and businesses like banks not shelling out all of their earnings to big executives so the banks can weather financial turbulence without govt intervention.

It seems raising taxes on these truly high earners would eliminate the incentive to "screw" everyone else, including the Government.

I'm not talking about those making just over $250k, which are being portrayed as wealthy. In many parts of the country, ie NY and SF, the cost of living necessitates that kind of money to own a home and have a family.

I'm talking about the CEOs with unlimited earning potential making $2 to $200 million per year or more. As far as I can tell, their earnings are based on the performance or profitability of their company. To make a business profitable a CEO has incentives to keep wages down, cut benefits, layoff as many as possible, outsource any function possible (mfg, software development, customer service, etc.) close locations that might be profitable, but not as profitable, etc. These acts not only hurt US Citizens, but also the US Govt as it has significantly decreased the tax base. Beyond the immediate employees of these companies, numerous other companies local to their operations are hurt when these cuts are made.

In return for keeping the masses depressed they earn lottery type money each year, and every year they want more. It seems the majority are insatiable at the cost of the majority of US citizens.

My wife works for a company where the CEO makes $25 million/year. The highest raise they gave to any employee last year was 1%, not enought to keep up with inflation (most employees received no raise). Yet the company beat estimates and paid dividends to stock holders. In return, the CEO makes more in a week then probably 99% of what the employees make in 1 year.

I can't understand how raising taxes on those making over $2 million/year on a sliding scale up to $5 million (with a tax of 90% or so) would be detrimental to growth. I'm not talking about stock market growth, that's been happening and jobs have been disappearing. I'm talking about job growth, and businesses like banks not shelling out all of their earnings to big executives so the banks can weather financial turbulence without govt intervention.

It seems raising taxes on these truly high earners would eliminate the incentive to "screw" everyone else, including the Government.

I'm not talking about those making over $250k, which are being portrayed as wealthy. In many parts of the country, ie NY and SF, the cost of living necessitates that kind of money to own a home and have a family.

I'm talking about the CEOs with unlimited earning potential making $2 to $200 million per year or more. As far as I can tell, their earnings are based on the performance or profitability of their company. To make a business profitable, a CEO might try to keep wages down, cut benefits, layoff as many as possible, outsource any function possible (mfg, software development, customer service, etc.) close locations that might not be as profitable, etc. These acts not only hurt US Citizens, but also the US Govt as it has significantly decreased the tax base. Beyond the immediate employees of these companies, numerous other companies local to their operations are hurt when these cuts are made.

In return for keeping the masses depressed they earn lottery type money each year, and every year they want more. It seems the majority are insatiable at the cost of the majority of US citizens.

My wife works for a company where the CEO makes $25 million/year. The highest raise they gave to any employee last year was 1%, not enought to keep up with inflation (most employees got no raise). Yet the company beat estimates and paid dividends to stock holders. In return, the CEO makes more in a week then probably 99% of what the employees make in 1 year.

I can't understand how raising taxes on those making over $2 million/year on a sliding scale up to $5 million (with a tax of 90% or so) would be detrimental to growth. I'm not talking about stock market growth, that's been happening and jobs have been disappearing. I'm talking about job growth, and businesses like banks not shelling out all of their earnings to big executives so the banks can weather financial turbulence without govt intervention.

It seems raising taxes would eliminate the incentive to "screw" everyone else, including the Government.

Obviously they're somewhat accurate based on recent data, but how have they changed over the years as hormones have been added to foods and portion sizes have increased?

I ask as we have a 17 month old son who we've fed the best foods possible, but he's a bit under weight. Is it plausible that he'll be smaller then other kids his age who are eating chicken, milk and beef full of growth hormones?

It's for an app programmed in java. The app pulls lists of photos with corresponding descriptions. need something that looks good and is very easy to use for non tech types.

Pleae look at this with an open mind, not standing in conservative shoes or with 5 kids of your own.

There are a ton of Baby Boomers, my parents and my wifes parents (born in the 40's-50's) all had between 3 and 6 siblings. All of them went on to have only 1 or 2 kids of their own. Now those kids, my generation are having even less children, for the same reasons they had less, financial reasons. This is a trend I've noticed with many of my friends and co-workers as well.

Currently with 2 kids, my wife and I have to pay $1400 monthly in daycare costs, this is about 40% more then our mortgage payment.

If the government provided daycare, as they do K-12 schooling, that in itself would create long term jobs in the form of daycare workers. It would also create much greater demand for goods. If I can afford to have 4 kids instead of 2, that would double the demand of all goods in my family going forward, hence more jobs in all sectors. Beyond that, it would add 2x (at least in my family) as many future tax payers/consumers to help grow the economy and support programs like Social Security.

Pleae look at this with an open mind, not standing in conservative shoes or with 5 kids of your own.

There are a ton of damn Baby Boomers, my parents and my wifes parents (born in the 40's-50's) all had between 3 and 6 siblings. All of them went on to have only 1 or 2 kids of their own. Now those kids, my generation are having even less children, for the same reasons they had less, financial reasons. This is a trend I've noticed with many of my friends and co-workers as well.

Currently with 2 kids, my wife and I have to pay $1400 monthly in daycare costs, this is about 40% more then our mortgage payment.

If the government provided daycare, as they do K-12 schooling, that in itself would create long term jobs in the form of daycare workers. It would also create much greater demand for goods. If I can afford to have 4 kids instead of 2, that would double the demand of all goods in my family going forward, hence more jobs in all sectors. Beyond that, it would add 2x (at least in my family) as many future tax payers/consumers to help grow the economy and support programs like Social Security.

....real estate? Is it vehicles per day? I thought there was a different way of describing it.

I know toll road passes work with rfid signals, and when your car passes by the rfid transmitter, your account is charged. Is there any sort of technology, perhaps a transmitter, that would ring your phone, or charge your account if you came within a certain distance of it?

Thanks

He keeps talking about job creation, but not about long term employment. The stimulus program with funding for new highways creates jobs, clean energy creates jobs (in his theory). But what happens when those road projects are completed and all of the wind turbines are installed?

The highway funding has created an unnatural influx of road construction which will be followed by a huge decrease in the number of road projects, hence, those construction workers will be unemployed.

Once the wind turbines are built and installed, those workers will have to look for new jobs, sure they'll need a team to monitor, maintain, etc. but still, many will lose jobs. Also, how many people working in other forms of power generation will lose their jobs?

My point being, a job is something you get after school, bagging groceries, baby sitting or cutting grass. In order to support your family, you need a career, long term employment, stability.

Maybe we should have elected a President who's had a true career at some point in his life.

I've found several foreclosed homes in which I'm interested. Isigned up for an online service that implies that they can give you this info, but they can't. Is this information readily available at the county level, and if so, who would I contact?