Letter: Younger generation will enjoy living with ‘rents again

15 comments:

• Irons1 posted at 5:03 pm on Sat, Oct 13, 2012.

  Posts: 162

  Leon, as usual, is an idiot. I bought my first home in 1984. Not through a credit union but through a regular bank. I was single. I lived in an apartment for a grand total of two months. You do not have a clue about anything, and I doubt ever will. The big rock is waiting for you to crawl back under.

  • Link

   

• VofReason posted at 1:47 pm on Fri, Oct 12, 2012.

  Posts: 1487

  Yup, we need to elect President Obama again so they the taxpayers can pay for them to live where ever they want.

  • Link

   

• busdriningmom posted at 5:48 pm on Thu, Oct 11, 2012.

  Posts: 7

  Leon, I believe you are making this garbage up as you go along. In 1972 my husband and I bought a house. At that time my husband was making slightly more than average income, about 13,000.00. The house we bought was only 22,000.00, about the average for a single story 3 bed, 2 bath ranch home in the Phoenix area. We did not have 2 incomes because I, like most of my female friends, was a stay at home mom. While you are right that most singles lived in apartments, most couples were in the exact same place my husband and I were. Now, it was much easier for my kids to get their houses, but it was not nearly as impossible as you imply for those of us who bought in the 70's.

  • Link

   

• Leon Ceniceros posted at 3:38 pm on Thu, Oct 11, 2012.

  Posts: 2615

  Dear Democrat "Sheeples"...read my comment...."unless it was a tax advantage". It wasn't much of a tax advantage to "SINGLES" to buy a home because most Banks required two stead incomes if you were earning less than $30,000.00 a year. The only "Singles" who could get good interest rates were Civil Sector employees (City Hall, Cops, Fireman or Teachers) through their..."CREDIT UNIONS".
  Single employees had to have been earning $40,000.00 on up to get a Bank to loan them a dime and be able to take the mortgage interest tax advantage of your Income Tax.

  Democrats = quit be "sheeples" = read carefully before opening mouth.....lol.....[wink][wink]

  • Link

   

• xyno posted at 12:05 pm on Thu, Oct 11, 2012.

  Posts: 35

  1970 my wife and I bought our first home, I had just turned 18 and she was 17. The home cost 13K, with payments of $50 month. Leon is a nut. I bet he is a Tea (inappropriate, and frankly not a nice term)

  • Link

   

• Accuracy posted at 11:59 am on Thu, Oct 11, 2012.

  Posts: 1993

  Richard Tracy thinks: “Under the Paul Ryan they will have an opportunity to have their parents live with them, once Social Security as we know it ends.”

  -----------------------------------------------------

  The Mitt Romney - Paul Ryan campaign's position is to raise the retirement age for Social Security and cut benefits for high-income earners.

  According to a new Associated Press-GfK poll; Most Americans say go ahead and raise taxes, and raise the retirement age, if it will save Social Security benefits for future generations.
  
  Even though, the Social Security Administration can fund full benefits from 2017 thru 2037 by cashing in Treasure Bonds currently held in the Social Security Trust fund. And if and when the bonds run out, ongoing contributions will still fund approximately 75 to 80 percent of Social Security payments to retirees for many decades after that.
  

  • Link

   

• sockratties posted at 5:12 am on Thu, Oct 11, 2012.

  Posts: 970

  Demo… I agree. When I was 30 years old and had been out of the service for 6 years we bought our first house for $18,000 under the G.I. Bill with a low interest loan and no down payment in 1966. Before that I had been renting a house and going to college, also under the G.I. Bill.

  leon gets his imitation facts from where the sun don’t shine… right beside his head.

  • Link

   

• DemocraticDad posted at 12:59 am on Thu, Oct 11, 2012.

  Posts: 143

  Leon said, "Back in the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's and 1990's....every one under the age of 35yo lived in an apartment.....EVERYONE."

  WHAT? WHAT?
  In 1975 when I was 27 and my wife was 26 we bought our first home, as did MOST of our friends at similar ages. I was a teacher and she was a claim adjuster, so we weren't exactly wealthy. By the time I was 34 and she was 33 we had sold that first home and bought a larger home for our family that now had 2 kids. So we were on our second home before age 35.

  Leon, do you pull your facts out of your rear end?

  • Link

   

• sockratties posted at 7:55 pm on Wed, Oct 10, 2012.

  Posts: 970

  chat… social security is not paid from the general fund and does not borrow money, thus it does not contribute to deficit spending. SS has $2.6 trillion in the fund which has been replaced by non-negotiable notes because the money has been spent by Congress on other programs. A payroll tax cut has no effect on SS. Those who are not currently earning a paycheck are not contributing to their account and will receive less when they become eligible.

  When Congress was unwilling to raise the debt limit, before the last time they kicked the can down the road, they were unable to get SS checks out on time because they had to borrow to do it. Not because SS is out of money but because Congress had spent the money and had to borrow to replace it. SS could actually make money if we could keep Congress’ hands out of the cookie jar.

  The reason SS was introduced to begin with is because people don’t start saving for retirement at an early age unless there is some kind of mandate. The “old age homes” were a burden charities and county services couldn't handle. Health insurance has the same problem. Unless people are forced to there will always be some who end up in the streets and on the public dole.

  Entitlement programs prevent wage earners from not having a safety net when they can no longer work by forcing people to do the right thing. The free market would choose to blame the indigent and make a profit in the casket business. We should remember why social security was introduced before we travel that road again.

  • Link

   

• truth posted at 3:12 pm on Wed, Oct 10, 2012.

  Posts: 1002

  A child born poor in a European nation has a far better chance to make it to the top than one born poor in the U.S. Two thirds of American children born to lowest - earners 20 percent will stay stuck in the bottom 40 percent all their lives. National Journal
  While the media household income dropped by 4 percent last year, the cumulative wealth of the Forbes 400 increaded by a wopping $200 billion. one reason for this growing disparity is that the wealthy invariable moved their millions into investments, which are taxed at the low 15 percent "capital gains" rate. That's because the rich effectively write the tax code. Salon.com

  • Link

   

• chatmandu002 posted at 12:07 pm on Wed, Oct 10, 2012.

  Posts: 1051

  Richard,
  Social Security as we know it will end by the year 2022 if we don't change it. Remember it's another Ponzi scheme and will run out of money at some point. You criticize Paul Ryan for proposing a change that would save SS while you triumph Obama for underfunding SS for the last 3 years by giving everyone a 2% payroll tax cut. Where is Obama's plan to save Social Security? Is it even possible to save Social Security? Or will it evolve into another entitlement program coming out of the general taxes paid to the government. Which will make even more of our citizens dependent on big government handouts bring us closer to the progressive socialist state that Obama and the liberal/progressives want. What next, oh yeah, Single Payer Healthcare that will be another big government handout the liberal/progressive socialists want. The bigger the government the fewer the freedoms.

  Stop the deficit spending.
  Stop big government.
  Let the free market do it's thing, make money and jobs.

  • Link

   

• Leon Ceniceros posted at 10:49 am on Wed, Oct 10, 2012.

  Posts: 2615

  Could one of the Liberal-Democrat commentors tell me where in the US Constitiution or the US Bill of Rights does it guarantee that every Citizen will have his or her own home.

  Back in the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's and 1990's....every one under the age of 35yo lived in an apartment.....EVERYONE.

  Only if you made a substantial income was it a "tax advantage" to buy a home. Back then a person seeking a Bank Home Loan had to have sufficient money to put down ...20%...of the asking price before a Bank would even talk to you. The Bank would only lend you 80% of the "assessed value" of the home....not the "Selling Price". too. You were required to have been employed at your job for .......ONE FULL YEAR MINIMUM....ONE FULL YEAR, FOLKS.

  So what the heck happened to these good Banking Practice Rules = the Democrats felt that not enough...."MINORITIES"....were "enjoying home ownership".
  The........"20% Downpayment Rule" = thrown out
  The........"1 Year Employment Rule" = thrown out
  The........"80% Bank Financing Rule" = thrown out

  Not only were millions of American's given 100% Bank Finance Loans to purchase a home but many times 110% - 115% of the homes "Selling, not assessed buy Selling Price" was given to Loan Applicants with just ...."1 MONTH ON THE JOB"...and some times not even that.

  AND YOU LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS STILL ARE MOANING AND GROANING THAT THESE ........"UNDER-QUALIFIED"...YOUNG PEOPLE CAN'T GET A HOME LOAN...........IT'S BECAUSE THEY DON'T ......."D.E.S.E.R.V.E."....A HOME LOAN.

  THE ONLY ...."DISCRIMINATION"...THAT ANY RATIONAL HUMAN BEING CAN SEE IS THAT THE YOUNGER GENERATION WILL BE RENTERS OR BE LIVING AT HOME IS BECAUSE THEY JUST ....."CAN'T AFFORD TO BUY A HOME"...THE OPERATIVE WORD IS............."AFFORD".

  • Link

   

• sockratties posted at 8:41 am on Wed, Oct 10, 2012.

  Posts: 970

  It’s hard to see the younger generation being able to support themselves, let alone their parents or grandparents. The baby boomers begat Gen X which begat Gen Y, born in the last couple of decades.

  Unfortunately many of the Y generation have become the “Why” generation… Why can’t I have what I want? Why do I have to go to school? Why do I have to get a job? Why can’t I have a new IPhone? Why are all the jobs I’m not qualified for moving overseas?

  • Link

   

• downtownresident posted at 8:23 am on Wed, Oct 10, 2012.

  Posts: 818

  Yes, and they'll be living in a rental. Remember, Mitt said nobody should help anybody save their homes. They should all be foreclosed and sold to investors (rich people like Mitt)so they can be turned into rental properties. Yep, the American Dream lives on, only for the rich, though.

  • Link

   

• Bluepoet posted at 7:22 am on Wed, Oct 10, 2012.

  Posts: 485

  Not only that, but the grandparents, as well, if they manage to live long enough, without health care...

  At least, sales of trailers will see an increase...

  • Link