StrangeSox

More trash TV. Why can't they ever come up with anything decent? Why does it have to be crappy reality shows or game shows?

$600/indv, no matter how much you paid in? Or is it scaled by what you paid?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 10:59 AM) And they both f'ing suck. What an AWFUL election for true "get the government the hell out of my life" conservatives. Huckabee wasn't any better. He was socially conservative and fiscally liberal. That's about as government-invasive as you can get.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 11:14 AM) Anything that works gets copied and duplicated. It goes both ways. Coke watches Pepsi and Pepsi watches Coke for great ideas. They try and dress them up in new clothes, but it's all the same. Not every campaign is taking this s***-slinging to the same level that Bush did in the past and now the Clintons are starting to do.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 11:05 AM) I wish it were true more often. They can talk about the issues all they want but it wasn't the issues that drove McCain out of the 2000 race, it was his illegitimate black child. Sadly that sort of s*** works faster than a hundred position statements. And I'm not signaling Bush out, just pick the best recent example. Like I said, pop the hood and the business if politics is the same for both parties. Orchestrated by Rove. See the post on the last page about Bill's admiration of Rove's strategies.

Another gem from the debate: Hillary attacks Obama for his "Present" votes and says you can never have an honest debate with him because he always has some explanation for why he voted the way he did. I didn't know it was a bad thing to get context instead of just looking at a voting record.

Suprise! Their entire campaign seems to be talk policy-light, pumped full of buzzwords, and slam Obama on every little thing you have, even if its a gross exageration or outright lie.

I'm going back and listening to the recent Democrat debate. The first question was about teh economy. Hillary's plan for the current credit problems is to freeze all foreclosures for 90 days and freeze rates for 5 years. Way to completely handcuff banks. Also, Clinton attacked Obama for defending that "slumlord." Heard some clarification on NPR last night. Turns out he billed 5 hours of work to a community group that was working with the "slumlord's" group. Is that the best she can come up with? I absolutely despise this woman. I will vote for ANY of the Republican candidates before her.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 05:31 AM) I was thinking about the "why was it traded" question. If it was traded that soon, and there were problems, it would have been under warranty, and it would be reported. Dealers are one of the better CarFax reporters. I know GM has a computerized system that tracks all of a car's warranty claims and work done at a dealership. I found out my car had part of the front quarter panel repainted fresh off the boat. I also found out that the trunk release was replaced with ~100 miles on the car. Those are things a Carfax would never tell you.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Jan 24, 2008 -> 12:08 AM) That's why you get a carfax report and then there's no worries. See my earlier post about that. If something shows up on the Carfax, great, now you know. However, just because the Carfax is clear doesn't mean the car wasn't in an accident. My girlfriend's car was in two serious accidents, both of which did 2k+ of damage and bent the frame (was fixed, but still, its never quite the same). Neither of them showed up on the Carfax report.

QUOTE(almagest @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 01:30 PM) Is there any specific reason why #1 is true? I mean, it makes sense, since there's no reliability data on the new cars or redesigns, but I'd think you could get a good idea of what to expect from reviews, and from past data from other models from that manufacturer. As an engineer, I can tell you that we never get everything 100% right the first time. That first model year is when a lot of bugs get worked out and problems get discovered. These things get fixed, updated and upgraded in later model years.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 11:43 AM) I don't think as much anymore. Many of these used vehicles are vehicles that were leased and the term is up. But as I said, that is certainly something to make sure you look into- is it Carfax or something reports? Carfax is garbage. My girlfriend traded in her car last year. She had been rear-ended once, and I slid off the road and tore off the side on a tree. Neither accident showed up on the report and both caused frame damage.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 11:27 AM) The Audi engines are built to sustain 10k without an oil change- hell, you could probably even go more than that without problems. But there are no oils manufactured that can sustain 10k miles without getting thick and sludgy and clogging things up. So the car can handle it, but no current oil can. So I ended up buying a synthetic oil that lasts about 6,000 miles before it needs changing. Have to call BS on that one. On another automotive forum I frequent, a tribologist (oil expert, basically) did his own tests of synthetic oil in his car. He drained, analyzed, and put back in the oil every 3000 miles or so. After 15,000 miles, the oil showed very little signs of degradation. You want to change your oil after 2-3k on a brand new engine because there's metal that gets worn down. After that, you can 7k+ miles without a change if you're running synthetic.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 08:29 AM) At least consider it. Take a look at some of those same cars with 25,000 miles or so and the prices. You can negotiate a lot harder on used cars, so that comes into play. For most of twenty years I was in a position where I had to buy new cars. Once that was over and I could really analyze cost of ownership, I've been buying used. Even if you buy new, you will be driving a used car in a month or two. I don't know that I'd ever by brand-new myself. Last spring I bought a car with less than 15,000 miles and 18 months of warranty left for a little more than half the sticker price. However, if you're going hybrid, you won't get the tax credits if you buy used, so that throws a wrench into the cost analysis.

With the hybrids, you really need to look on a case-by-case basis. Some hybrids are great. Others cost thousands more and get maybe 1 or 2 mpg more, or, in some rare cases, are even worse overall. Also, the older EPA testing methods favored hybrid engines and gave them artificially inflated MPG. They have a new system now, but I don't know if 2008 cars are rated on it.

New vs. used is really going to depend on what sort of deals the dealerships are offering (0% financing, cash back, etc.). With the depreciation hit that new cars take, you really should consider buying a car that's a year or two old The Civic isn't bad, and I like the Scions my friends have (no xD, though). My friend's Focus is a pile of garbage. Nissan Sentras have always been pretty solid.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2008 -> 05:16 PM) On the other side of that token though is the fact that you would expect his rent to be significantly lower out there. Hence, I'm paying more in rent than what some people here are paying in mortgages. If, for example, he were to pay $500 a month, that's a $6000 bill for 1 year. If $15k is the potential drop (I think that's maybe in the middle, I think 30% is entirely possible in many areas and 15% could well be the nationwide average, although it's hard to say anything more without knowing that specific market...but I'd still say there's a solid chance of bigger drops than that)...then that's nearly $10,000 in price that you could save by renting for a year and then buying after further drops, and that's not even considering a higher end home or bigger price drops. Like I've said, Chicago seems to be somewhat insulated from the big swings, up or down. Just watching the condos in our complex (100k-130k), the prices haven't dropped a dollar and the units aren't sitting on the market for too long. Sub-200k properties aren't the ones that are going to be affected by this as much, imo. Different strokes for different folks. Personally, I'd never want to live in the city. I love being 20 minutes away -- I can go there when I want, but I don't have to stay.

Back within 50 (hopefully I don't set off another downward spiral this time!)

With the feds cutting rates like crazy, it might not be a bad time to take out a mortgage.

After racing for a 500 pt. drop at the opening, the market has slowly clawed its way back to within 40 pts. of the opening. Either they like the rate cut or someone slapped some sense into them. Edit: Of course, as soon as I say that, it drops back to -150.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 22, 2008 -> 08:12 AM) You act like this is Pakistan. I don't care if a "9/11 event" happened on January 1 of next year. This country will still go on, with a new president, on January 20, 2009. Period. ..but what if it happened on Nov. 1st? Would he delay elections?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 21, 2008 -> 05:44 PM) I wouldn't plan on renting long-term, but if you expect a house you buy tomorrow to lose 10-20% of its value this year, then that's even more money being thrown away. If you don't plan on selling for several years, it will almost certainly regain that value. You'd really need to look at how long you're willing to sit on the market and let it bottom out and how much that'll save you in purchase price vs. how many months you'll be throwing rent money away.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Jan 21, 2008 -> 04:19 PM) My wife and I were pre-approved for $250,000 and we bought our house for about $170,000. It was tough going for a bit there, but we are now doing O.K.. My word of warning to you is to stay away from what you are pre-approved for. Definitely. My parents could easily get a loan for twice as much home as they have now, but they'd be broke and living paycheck to paycheck. Make a detailed budget and work backwards into what you can afford for a mortgage.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 21, 2008 -> 02:58 PM) In terms of the renting/buying debate, IMO, right now is absolutely the time to rent, at least for the next 6 months. The housing market is going down dramatically and right now shows no signs of hitting the floor. The fact I see is this...If you were to buy a place for about 200k or so right now, there's a decent chance that if you tried to sell it 1 year from now, it'd be worth $180k or less. Conversely, if you rented for 1 year, there's a chance you could pay $5000 or less in rent, and if the housing market keeps contracting, you could find a place a year or two from now that you'd be paying 10-20% less than you would for it than if you bought now. Combine that with the fact that you're not sitting on a gigantic downpayment right now, and you're pretty much set up perfectly to take a year or two, rent, and then be ready to buy once the dramatically bad news stops pouring out of the housing market on a daily basis. That's a viewpoint I hadn't thought of before, and definitely something to consider. I've read several articles about the Chicago-area (and several other large cities) real estate market and how it is usually insulated from the bigger boom-bust cycles of places like So. Cal. The housing prices won't go up as much, but they won't fall as far, either.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 21, 2008 -> 02:43 PM) Don't rent to friends unless you are willing to not be friends with them again (in the case of you buying and they pay you). It puts unbelievable strain on your relationship when a friend owes you money, especially if they are real slow about paying it back, or even pay it at all. But if you do, get everything in writing, and I mean everything. What they pay, when they pay, what happens if they are late or don't pay, and make them read it. Big +1 to this. My girlfriend tried renting the spare bedroom in her condo to a friend and it was a disaster. They managed to remain friends but it was rough for a while and she's still owed a month's rent.