wibbit wrote:
There were a lot of people there, if i remember correctly the 1br there went for around 290k, i wonder if the guy knows he could walked 3 blocks and bought in dixon mill a fully rennovated 1br CONDO for lower price.

There were a lot of clueless people, some were whining when the bid started at 100k, others were still bidding at 270k+.

there was also 1 guy there who already owned 20+ units, he basically put a floor on those units.

All in all, it was interesting. I didnt bid as i dont feel it's a good investment at those prices, especially for a coop and current nyc situation.

you are looking at a netnet rent income of 10k a year for a studio. 150k puts it on the line as a 15 year return.

Cash is king right now.

ryanone wrote:
wow, what nerve to charge for a 'copy'... it's interesting though because while i was talking to the police officer when he was filling out the police report, I asked him if I can get a copy... he mentioned that I would have to call in during the work week to get a copy... granted, the police report has to be filled out manually by the officer... you would think that the report would work like a receipt, 1. copy for the merchant/business (in this case for the police dept.) 2. another copy for the customer (in this case the one who files the police report)... all they would have to do is tear off the copy underneath the original... geezzz... ridiculous...

lecxe wrote:
Quote:

bdlaw wrote:
Question- where was this philosophy during 8 years of Bush-bashing?

When your job approval rating is at 25% & 8 in 10 people feel the country is on the wrong track as a result of your leadership, guess what...... Bush deserves the bashing.

Vigilante wrote:
Although I did not vote for Bush I initially stepped back and waited to see how he would govern. Like most Americans I supported him after 9-11-01. I actually saw him on the Friday after 9-11 after he spoke at Ground Zero. I was standing on the Westside Hwy. when his motorcade drove by. He was 20 feet away from me as he drove by with his window down sitting across from Guiliani. He waved right at me and I instinctually gave him the thumbs-up. It was surreal. Like many I supported the overthrow of the Taliban. And although I enjoyed watching Saddam's palaces go up in a mushroom cloud I did not support the Iraq invasion.
IMO this country has turned a page historically. There comes a time to extend a fist and a time to extend a hand in peace. We should not be naive but we should make an effort to move things in a positive direction. The world is too small for us to take an Isolationist stance. "Drill, Baby, Drill" sounds great but it is a false hope. Even Rev. Wright was on to something when he said our "chickens were coming home to roost". If you blindly trust that your goverment is doing the right thing internationally and take no interest in how our foreign policy effects other countries then you should not be surprised that bad things happen. I heard so many say after 9-11 that they attacked us because they are "jealous" of us etc. etc. Bin Laden is a piece of Sh*t, I agree, and he is an extreme example of a zealot who had the ways and means to harm us. But I think of the other countries throughout history that we supported while they subjugated their own people. Chile, South Africa, Saudi Arabia etc.
Last night on the news I saw so much footage of people in other countries joyously waving the American flag. I haven't seen that in a long, long time.
Obama will not be perfect but he offers us a hope that we can move the conversation along. The time for scared, angry people who lash out at all things foreign has passed. It is time for us to be represented by the best we have to offer.

bdlaw wrote:
Question- where was this philosophy during 8 years of Bush-bashing?

jillianp wrote:
Quote:

TheHookJC wrote:
I have heard this all over the place. "Coming together," "unity." I didn't vote for Obama. I will put my support behind him because that is what we do as Americans. That doesn't mean we have to agree with everything he does or every policy he proposes. That is the beauty of a multi-party system.

You are totally right. You never have to agree with everything someone does or tells you...but as our next president we should stand behind him and believe he will create positive change. I don't think negativity about the situation will help anything. Coming together means not bad-mouthing or planning on disaster to happen...

hero69 wrote:
But where are they coming from - you don't see mass migrations from Western Europe or even western Europe. They're coming from countries where the governments are quite frankly failures. I won't name names, but we all know where.

hero69 wrote:
Give me some money and I will gladly move. You sound like one of those morons who has never been outside the US but stand on the Street telling everyone that the US is the best darn country in the world. Bullshit!

There are positives and negatives in any country. The US might be the strongest country militarily, but at what cost? Just look at the billions of dollars squandered in Iraq and Afghanistan

hero69 wrote:
The living standards are considerably in Denmark and Sweden. Even the lower economic classes live just as well as many working class americans. I'd take their system over ours anyday. Send me some money and maybe I can apply for residency there

Loopy wrote:
The level of ignorance displayed by the "convervatives" in this thread about the Constitution is staggering. Honestly, have you ever read a book, any book, on the subject? Have you even read the Constitution? Jesus.

And as far as needing guns if Obama "looses" (nice spelling, twat), I would imagine your redneck brethern will be much better armed and willing if Obama wins.

KeyboardJockey wrote:
Quote:

TheHookJC wrote:
Delaware has a whopping 180,000 more people then Alaska. Obama and the Democrats want to cut the military by 25% and raise taxes in an economic crisis and a very unstable world. Seems like trouble to me.

That's funny, the world became more unstable after Bush was elected and gave the finger to most of our allies. A coincidence?

From Obama's website regarding his view on the military:

-------------
To build "the first truly 21st century military?we must maintain the strongest, best-equipped military in the world." This includes the "ability to put boots on the ground" and "I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines
-------------

So yeah, that represents a reduction of 25%.

On taxes: His plan is to reduce taxes on 95% of the tax payers. So yeah, I can see how that means he will "raise taxes". Tax rates on those making 250K+ will be how they were under Bill Clinton (highest bracket will be 3% more).

So it's not like someone making 300K will all the sudden be paying $50,000 more in taxes.

The new tax rate is applied to income above $250K - not all of it.

You should educate yourself on the policies some more, then come back and talk.

jillianp wrote:
Hey TheHookJC...are you a ventriloquist?
If so, you should really stop having your dummy say so many silly things.

KeyboardJockey wrote:
Quote:

CANKICKER wrote:
The democrats have had the house and senate for over 2 years and havn't passed a solid bill yet, so lets really do our research before we Spew on this post....

CK

You really should get new talking points from the GOP.

Everyone knows the reason the current congress hasn't gotten anything done is because the repubs block every bill they try to pass.

Once more Democrats get elected this cycle to both the house and senate, the chances for bills to pass is much higher.

The Republicans had their opportunity when they controlled both houses and the Presidency, but in typical fashion, they got greedy and f'd everything up -- including their political futures.

shakatah wrote:
Quote:

CANKICKER wrote:
Quote:

shakatah wrote:
The Office of the President is not a dictatorship. Obama nor anyone else can GUARANTEE squat cause no single individual in that office can dictate US policy. The President, the House, the Senate, and the Judiciary share power in a US democracy.

Say all that to say that if the standard of presidential success was whether each president was able to deliver on EVERYTHING they promised when they were running for the office, EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM would be a failure. Fact is NO president can deliver on everything they want to do/promise because the US is not a dictatorship and the president does not have absolute power...what matters is whether the president's philosophy is good or bad for the country.

If taxation is your issue, the question to answer is whether you want a president who will continue to give large corporations and wealthy americans tax cuts or one who will work to turn things around and provide tax cuts to the majority of americans..i.e. middle class, working poor, etc..?

Answer with your vote on Tuesday.

Thats correct, they share a balance of power, but you need to know A Democratic prez with a Democratic House is no good.

The democrats have had the house and senate for over 2 years and havn't passed a solid bill yet, so lets really do our research before we Spew on this post....

CK

CK you are forgetting one very important and critical person, the PRESIDENT, remember him?????? What party is he from again???? Research "VETO"....then ask a 5th grader about the structure of the US government.

Also, even with control of the house, senate and whitehouse...STILL no guarantees cause members of congress are not robots who just vote along party lines. Some democrats from many southern states have more in common with moderate republicans from northern states than they do with democrats from northern states.

Do some research, but before you do PLEASE sharpen your reading comprehension skills.

hero69 wrote:
Bill Clinton raised taxes and the fact of the matter is that the US was better for it. It helped reduce the deficit and fund needed programs.

In 2001, didn't McCain denounce Bush's tax cuts. What's different now. Mr. McCain should be applauding Mr. Obama. Mr. McCain shows time and time again that he is too erratic to be president.

SLyng wrote:
Quote:

TheHookJC wrote:
Families, singles, everyone's taxes are going to go up under Obama. Just you wait.

Are you that delusional to think taxes aren't going up under McCain as well? We have a half trillion dollar hole in our budget and will have a democrat controlled congress - what are the odds any of Bush's tax cuts become permanent? What are the chances McCain's proposal for additional corporate welfare get through the congress?

At Least Obama's being honest about taxes going up, McCain (and his supporters) are in denial.

Amy wrote:
Let's be realistic here. No one-- not Obama or McCain-- knows what they're going to have to do financially when they get into office. We're spending so much money on the wars, not to mention bailing out institutions, that who knows where we'll be in January.

When a candidate lays out his plans, of course some of them will turn out to be false. It's inevitable because they need to get in and see what the situation is. The point is that you're suppose to look at their plans to see what general direction they'd take the country in. It would be childish to take these candidates' plans at face value, yet Americans do it every time. If McCain doesn't raise anyone's taxes, we're going to be in trouble... or more trouble, I should say. People don't like taxes, but how else will we pay for all of this? Obama would have fewer expenses if he gets to carry out his plan, because he wants to pull the troops out of Iraq, a huge, huge expense.

There's an ad on the right of my screen that says "'He's absolutely right'-- Barack Obama. Another great endorsement for John McCain. Paid for by McCain-Palin." Is that a joke? Talk about taking a statement out of context. McCain is totally desperate. He talks more about Obama than about himself, maybe because he's just a Bush clone.

wideman wrote:
This is scary. The Bush Administration has left this country in horrible condition. The country will be 12 trillion dollars in debt with an interest payment of over 300 billion a year and America just takes it. What a bunch of suckers!

Now we forget that our children?s children?s grand children will be paying off this debt. Worst yet there are suggestions that Obama will make things worst. How can anything get worst? Until Bush Franklin Pierce was known as the worst President in American history. Bush has now won that distinction, and ironically Bush is a direct descendent of Pierce.

Again America wants to continue this destructive course with a vote for McCain. This guy is out of touch, look at him. He can't even use the typewriter with the TV attached to it to read an email. America please don?t do it.

Amy wrote:
Obama wants to return tax levels to the levels of the Clinton era, before Bush's ridiculously reckless tax cuts. The wealthy were taxed a lot more way back when income taxes were first instituted. The only difference, I'm guessing, is that since Bush's tax cuts, the people who make over 250 K got used to a much higher standard of living and will now have to sacrifice some of that luxury. If that means getting rid of the Lexus and getting a Honda, I'm all for it.


This idea that the economy does much better when there are tax cuts is inaccurate, particularly when we're at war. Ironically, the tax cuts probably contributed to the credit crunch, because they helped raise the standard of living so ridiculously high that it made it impossible for the middle class to keep up with the $250 K Jones's without borrowing the money.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
I read that Obama and Tony Blair (UK Prime Minister) have a few things in common - Both had never had a political career and the first job in government was the ultimate job in government. They say he was a very good PM and introduced positive changes and his only sin was to believe the crap what Bush was saying about the axis of evil and lies about WMD.

JCase wrote:
Quote:

TheHookJC wrote:
Enjoy the change @$$ holes.

What happened? Did Obama win?

Sorry about the break-in.