Kevin Gowen wrote:

> Whatever floats your boat.

I call it "home" for a reason, even if I do not live there.

BTW, to enjoy a capital gain, not only would I have to sell a property, but if
I wanted to buy another home to live in, I would have to get a property less
valuable or desirable than the one I gave up, no? There are also handling fees
I would lose, yes?

> When do you think one should incur debt?

When it offers a more attractive return than alternatives such as keeping
money in the bank, or investing in stocks or bonds. I recall seeing a map in
TIME of the rising property values across the US. Values in some area in Texas
were growing about 25% a year. That's nice. The rest of the map was more run
of the mill, even around the interest rate. Even some negatives, if I recall.

Assuming one can come up with down payment, of course. 20% of $300,000, as is
the average single family dwelling in my home state, can be a bitch, as would
be qualifying for the loan, when they expect you to be making about four times
the monthly payments.

In any case, one cannot know about property values ahead of time, or be sure
about them, any more than they can about the stock market.

> > Are you "wise" enough to always come out with more on your
> > investments?
>
> I'll let you know. So far my two investments have been my property and my
> education. I think I'll come out with more on both. But no one bats 1.000.
> One just needs to bat more than .500. That's how casinos make money.
>
> > Why did you never imagine picking up Yahoo! or Yahoo!
> > Japan stocks? Perhaps you are in the wrong line of work.
>
> What line of work do you suggest?

If you are so confident and wise, you should be in investments.

> >> Ever hear of homeowner's insurance?
> >
> > It's not enough, as people in my community learned the hard way after
> > a hurricane that left about a quarter homeless and caused 1.6 billion
> > dollars in damage. I was actually employed by two insurance companies
> > after that hurricane, and saw how people got lowballed.
>
> That sounds like a personal problem.

People not being able to repair or rebuild their homes because of insurance
companies' low estimates, is a personal problem?

> > What it cost my mother to repair her house and bring it up to modern
> > building standard with a more substantial frame is almost precisely
> > twice what the insurance company offered her to restore the house to
> > its original condition,
>
> Original condition != modern building standard

It was not. Modern building standard was an upgrade.

> > and means my mother will be paying off a loan
> > until she is in her early 90s. With the financial crisis of a number
> > of large insurance companies, they also mulled cessation of service
> > in so called high risk areas as Hawaii.
> >
> > Do you know an insurance company that will actually pay the property's
> > replacement value? I'd like to hear of it.
>
> My policy pays for the assessed value of the property for tax purposes plus
> a flat amount for the items inside the house.

Is the Department of Taxation's "assessed value" of the property what you
would actually be able to buy it or a comparable one for? Would you sell your
property for an offer of only the "assessed value"?

> > So what, is you talk of real estate as if it were a sure thing, when
> > it is not.
>
> I never said that real estate was a sure thing.

But you talk about it as if it was, and too bad for the people if it is not.

> > So you're one of the lucky ones. It does not work, for many blacks or
> > those who live in traditionally minority communities, for example,
> > and is one big reason they are economically disadvantaged.
>
> What does it matter if they are black?

Being left behind in home ownership decades ago, is one big reason blacks are
behind today, because they don't have the nest eggs that middle class whites
do. It does not help that they continue to be discriminated against in other
areas such as employment and income.

> >> That is too bad, I agree.
> >
> > Your "that is too bad" is what keeps millions of Americans poor,
> > through no fault of their own,
>
> Sure it is.

How are poor returns on real estate people's own fault, when incredible gains
can be pure luck?

> > yet you would penalize them for not
> > being as fortunate as lucky real estate owners like my parents.
>
> How would I penalize them?

By taking away things to support or help them.

> > It is the Bush Administration which claims it has thwarted hundreds
> > of attacks, and constantly puts Americans on the alert. These
> > hundreds of attacks did not take place under Clinton, nor were
> > thousands of American lives lost to terror under him.
>
> I see. So what? Surely you aren't making a post hoc ergo propter hoc
> argument?
> (You still haven't counted them)

I don't need to when the Administration allegedly does. Clinton didn't have
such problems, nor did as many attacks the Administration say have been
thwarted, take place under Clinton.

> >> I find your accusing another person of being paranoid quite rich,
> >> Ass Baton.
> >
> > What of it, Jedi with concealment Kimber? Do you fear Islamist
> > terror? I do not.
>
> Neither do I.

Then why would you approve of that much security?

> >>> Go ahead and count all of them. But special attention should be paid
> >>> to those who claim to support Palestinians, oppose Israel or the US,
> >>> because those are the ones the US seem to concern themselves with
> >>> most.
> >>
> >> Count them for me.
> >
> > The Bush Admistration does it. Clinton did not have such troubles.
>
> No, I was asking about Earth, not EricWorld. You do remember the embassy
> bombings in Africa, don't you?

I'm talking about Earth. You compare embassy bombings to the World Trade
Center and Pentagon, on US soil?

> >>> What's Clinton's score?
> >>
> >> Tell me.
> >
> > No, you tell me. You hold Clinton responsible for attacks on citizens
> > and US interests even abroad when you spout off your list of
> > terrorist attacks, but only ask me what attacks have occurred on US
> > soil since the 9/11 attacks. Why this convenient qualifier?
>
> What attacks have I held Clinton responsible for? None.

What do you bring up attacks under Clinton for, while inserting the
interesting and convenient qualifiers for terrorism under Bush?

> This is because I realize that no government can guarantee to thwart every
> attack against its people.
>
> >>> Life in the region which is the current nation of Israel was not
> >>> always as dangerous or violent as recently. Jerusalem was actually
> >>> characterized as a city where Jew, Christian and Muslim lived in
> >>> peace.
> >>
> >> I wasn't asking about EricWorld. I was asking about Earth.
> >
> > I am talking about Earth. Israel and Jews in the area did not have
> > these problems, nor did the US.
>
> I was talking about Earth, not EricWorld.

I am talking about Earth.

> >>>> FWIW, my foreigner wife sure had no problem
> >>>> getting her green card after 9/11.
> >>>
> >>> So what? Is she openly Muslim or Middle Eastern?
> >>
> >> No. I'll tell you this, if she were openly Muslim or Middle Eastern
> >> she damn well should have had a bit more trouble getting admitted.
> >
> > Why should such a person, even if you were married to her, be
> > required to go through such trouble?
>
> They pose a higher risk.

So do people who joke about revolting against the US with their gun buddies,
but I do not foresee problems for you. Do you?

Even if the woman were your own wife, you would accept that being Muslim or
Middle Eastern makes them a greater risk, and they damn well should have more
trouble?

And how does Immigration know that your wife is not a member of Aum or yakuza,
an ultra nationalist, or an ultra leftist? How do they know she is not a North
Korean agent under a false name with false documents?

> >>> Even US citizens are
> >>> being targeted for being so because of US paranoia.
> >>
> >> Again with the paranoia thing.
> >
> > What of it? Street criminals are a greater danger than Islamist
> > organizations, even in the US.
>
> How do you measure danger?

Numbers of incidents and casualties. Probabilities. It would take a hell of a
lot of terrorism on US soil to compare to common crimes on US soil. You'd need
five days like 9/11 to come up with a comparable number of US murders in a
year. And I would still continue to travel, just as I have always done
(perhaps even more, if prices continue to go down as they have), as there are
about 10,000 safe flights in the US each and every day. Sure we need airport
security, but I'm not afraid to travel. If I were more interested in Southeast
Asia or the Middle East, I'd go there with my family, too, though I prefer
European architecture, food, and culture, myself.

How do you measure danger?

> >>> I didn't say the US was suffering attacks on a regular basis. Israel
> >>> is. That's what the "or" is for. It is the US government who
> >>> regularly claims that attacks are always being planned or thwarted.
> >>> The US didn't need such a mindset under Clinton.
> >>
> >> Yes, we did.
> >
> > Then how odd that neither Bush noticed till after 9/11.
>
> Noticed what?

The need for the current mindset about security and terror.

> >>>> It's too bad that the Japan-US
> >>>> relationship was the cause of those sarin attacks in the subway a
> >>>> few years back.
> >>>
> >>> No, Japan foresees trouble from many of the same sources the US
> >>> does.
> >>> And considering Japan does not have a close relationship with
> >>> Israel, there would be only one reason for such threats.
> >>
> >> Do you really think the US-Israeli relationship is a big reason for
> >> the threat against the US?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> You think wrong.

Do you believe the attacks and hate against the US would still be comparable,
even if the US and Israel were not such allies?

What do you say of such as this?

http://tinyurl.com/d99n

Rice: Israel