Ferrari Mailing List: slight change of topic: good time to buy homes in the US??

[E M (pokiebaron]

Hi Everyone,

I've been following the thread, and I think it's wonderful!!

With the current state of housing in the US, and the direction things seem
to be going over the next year of so, is it a good time to think about
buying some investment property in the US.

I'm not sure how banks are currently looking at outside investment, but with
all the mortgages that were handed out with nothing down, and now many
defaulting on payment, what type of money down are banks willing to accept
to take some of these homes off their hands?

Anyone with some knowledge of foreigners buying homes in the US want to give
me a quick education?  :-)

Thanks in advance,

Ed
911SC



2008/11/13 Ric Rainbolt <ricrainbolt [at] gmail.com>

> At 10:48 AM 11/13/2008, you wrote:
> >I agree with Ric on that point also, but the piece he is missing:
> >
> >The teenage mom struggling to raise her kid when their dad left them?
> >
> >The father who lost his job at the local plant, mostly due to poor
> >management by his company, and finds the only job available to him is to
> >serve burgers at local McDonalds as his skills are no longer useable or
> >marketable and his saving will only last him a year?
> >
> >The pensioner, who's lifes savings were stolen away by some shady
> >doctors or Enron executives?
> >
> >What is your answer for them?  Fuck you, your screwed?
>
>
> Not really. But in a post-LBJ society, these are nameless, faceless
> individuals. In the pre-LBJ society, local groups (be it churches,
> social clubs or even taverns) would take care of these true hard luck
> cases.
>
> This offered several advantages vs. a large centralized bureaucracy:
>
> #1 - It's harder to defraud your fellow church members or community
> outreach folks (at least for the long term anyway). These people know
> your situation and provide the specific types of help you need...
> money, or maybe a car, or maybe day care, or maybe just a few hot
> meals a week, or heck even some odds-and-ends jobs. The FedGov Corp
> method is to simply throw money at you with very little oversight as
> to how the money is used.
>
> #2 - It's harder to establish a life-long dependency on personal
> charities because at some point, the providers will lay down some
> "tough love" to get the recipients self-sufficient again. The FedGov
> Corp method can easily be manipulated into a lifetime of free money.
> Too many doctors, lawyers and politicians are on the take in the whole
> scheme.
>
> #3 - Local, personal charities work to discourage the types of
> behaviors that lead to and perpetuate these situations. The FedGov
> Corp method actually encourages it.
>
> #4 - Forgive the metaphysical nature, but charity is something that
> flows from one's "holy spirit" to another by the impulse of
> compassion. It's spiritually meaningful for both the giver and the
> recipient. Being forced at the point of law to help millions and
> millions of people you'll never know, meet or even hear about simply
> isn't charity. There is virtually no empathy manifested in the giver
> and no thankfulness manifested in the recipient. Actually, quite the
> opposite in both cases, as you get resentment in the giver and a
> sense of entitlement in the recipient.
>
> The numbers speak for themselves. If 40% of our citizens are
> receiving direct benefits, that's 120-130 million people. Are there
> really that many hard luck stories like those you state above? Two
> out of every five people? I doubt it. Two or three million maybe, I'd
> believe that.
>
> Now don't tell me local charities don't work. One of my main personal
> charities is a private orphanage. In 96 years, they've never taken a
> single government check. 100% privately supported. The children are
> taught good manners, a good work ethic and there is a strong emphasis
> on education and personal responsibility. They handle over 100 kids
> at any given time. Many of the employees make nothing at all or are
> simply reimbursed for their hard expenses. Compare this to the cold
> grey-iron nature of a government shelter of any kind.
>
> As for government run "charities", why should the upper 10% of
> earners be saddled with 72.7% of the bill? If bureaucratic charity is
> such a good thing, why is it great for me, but not-so-great for the
> bottom 50% of wage earners?
>
> RR
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
> http://lists.ferrarilist.com/mailman/options/ferrari/pokiebaron%40gmail.com
>
> Sponsored by BooyahMedia.com
> and F1 Headlines
> http://www.F1Headlines.com/
>