Leaderboard

You can "create" the free lunch for yourself by amortizing it over 26 years and paying the difference toward principle. You make the same number of payments (26 years) at a lower rate (I'm assuming 3.25% is better than what you had), thus getting done sooner, less total outlay (less even than the 30 year note calls for, which was already "substantially less"), and maintain the flexibility to reduce your monthly payment to the 30 year amortized amount if you're in a bind in any given month.... ETA: OBTW, if you really want to get ahead, keep paying the same payment as you've been making up to now. You'll be done well ahead of your original loan and tens of thousands of dollars ahead on total payments....

Best thing about the AF is listening to nav's talk on the intercom.

If she is able to work and not make poor choices and decides to do the opposite and that kills her, then so be it. Just like when someone kills themselves when they drink and drive or do drugs--personal responsibility man. Like you said, it's not rocket surgery. You want people to be able to marry whoever they way, ie make their own choices, and I agree. No different in this case--she can get off her ass and do something, and if not, she gets the consequences. If your kid doesn't do their homework or study for their tests and then gets a bad grade and fails are you going to say it was their fault or somebody else's fault? Now, having said all of this...I believe it's up to each individual State to determine how they take care of their poor--whether they want massive taxes and entitlements or to do nothing and let them fend for themselves or somewhere in between. And by the way, charities have always been there in this country to help the most venerable. The government didn't hire Mother Theresa to help people...she decided to that on her own. As for the rest of the stuff you posted, I'm interested in Liberty, Rights and Freedom...you're more interested in winning elections and turning the country into an even larger welfare state. Hence why I don't back up the GOP's nonsense either...I'm actually surprised they kept together and didn't break before the Sequester, though I guess they always still could. And again, you never commented on why we have wayyyy more people on some sore of welfare today? You say it's not getting worse, then why are more people on it? And why are we spending more on it? Again, if taxing more and the government spending more led to more prosperity, then why wouldn't every country be doing it and also doing well?

Had to call "knock it off" at the :07 mark

In her defense, she was merely repeating what the airline pilot "expert" interviewee told the other talking heads. What are you trying to say?

The Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a Black Conservative group, has started a marketing campaign equating gun control to Jim Crow. Interesting stuff for those who like to ignore history.

Yes I do concur- I never said anything contrary. I just pointed out to RUSH, when he implied his disgust at being responsible for others, that responsibility for others is a large part of being in a society. So until the time comes when people start actually voting libertarian instead of agreeing on the principles of the party and then voting the status quo, we're stuck paying these taxes and conversely stuck giving that money to others in the form of welfare. In the meantime I'll continue to donate my time, energy, and whatever resources I have available to them outside that scope in the hopes they'll get to the point they can in turn pull themselves out of the hole and start helping others as well.

Really, when you refinance, your choices are pretty much the 15 or 30 year loan (ARM or fixed), so unless your loan has 15 or 30 years remaining, you are either going to extend your loan terms or shorten it by paying more per month with the 15 year loan. Either way, you should have chipped down your principal at least a tad by paying it over the past four years, so even though your new loan was back to 30 years, it should have been a slightly lower monthly payment even before taking the lower rate into account. Good on you for paying more principal up front. A word of caution - a lot of people don't really understand how this process works - especially about paying extra into principal each month. When you took out your new loan, say it was for $200K at 4% for simplicity, the bank reverse engineers the numbers assuming you are going to pay it down over 30 years, and are going to pay 4% interest on the balance yearly. In other words, you are going to pay $8K interest the first year, $7.8K interest the second year, $7.5K interest the third year - all divided by 12 months of course - or something similar to that as your overal principal decreases over the years. This math is reverse engineered assuming your principal is going down by the scheduled amount over 30 years. The "scheduled amount" gets all fucked up when you start paying extra and chipping down principal ahead of schedule. Paying down principal, of course, should favor you, but a lot of times the bank rigs the rules to favor them. It looks like you are going to plop down an extra $3K in principal each year, but the bank is still going to charge you interest according to the original payback schedule. Usually, all they do is take off payments at the end of the loan, which greatly favors them. It just changes your pay-off date, not the yearly interest paid, which is based on the old, higher amount of principal. In other words, say, for simplicity that you came across $100K and paid that in addition to your next payment. The numbers were originally crunched for you to pay 4% of a $200K balance the first year, 4% of a $198K balance the second year, 4% of $195K the third year, or whatever - hence my example interest numbers above of paying about $8K interest per year. If you paid the extra principal, $100K in this example, you should only be paying like $4K interest in the first year, $3.8K in the second year, $3.5K in the third year, etc. But your monthly overall payment and monthly interest payment will not change. Your loan will simply be paid off earlier, depending on how much extra you had pre-paid over the years. In other words, you are paying interest on a principal amount that is actually higher than the principal amount that you actually owe. Total robbery. The way around it is that you have to periodically tell your bank to re-crunch the numbers, known as amortizing the numbers. I believe my bank calls it "re-characterizing" the loan, as I remember seeing that small blurb on page 69 of my stack of 150 pages of mortgage documents we went through on closing day. Most banks charge a $50 - $100 fee for the trouble of hitting the refresh button on their Excel program after typing in the new amount of principal that you actually owe. Not sure if you want to pay $100 to re-crunch your loan each year after paying it down $3K extra per year, but you will have to do it periodically if you want your extra principal payments to lower the overall amount of interest that you pay over the loan (which is the goal). Some banks might automatically recalculate/reamoritize it for you with each additional payment, but I know a lot of banks don't.

Confirmed. Found the baby picture: https://www.google.com/search?q=baby+monkey+wearing+glasses&hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&biw=1344&bih=694&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSEgkp93EkgmWHUiFPgybmAQrn1g&iact=hc&vpx=2&vpy=118&dur=5210&hovh=216&hovw=233&tx=64&ty=313&sig=114333800760186114675&ei=cps0UcmzKora8wTF8IHABg&page=1&tbnh=148&tbnw=167&ved=1t:2220,r:0,s:0

I think he and Masshole eloped...

This should start us off... :beer: Stuck

The A-10 Thunderbolt II is an outdated platform that cannot be replaced soon enough by the F-35.

Experiences change people's view on politics. In your formerly liberal friend's case, having a family and being a housewife drastically changed her political priorities. On the other side of the coin, I know plenty of people who were conservative that went to grad school later in life, were exposed to different people from different backgrounds, and became more liberal. Also keep in mind some things that passed for liberal 20 years ago can be considered conservative today. Times can change as people stay the same and get older.

More words, can we force the PYB name on this guy?

Welcome to this thing we call "society".

Nsplayer, If he slows his roll, will you slow your posts? Even if I ignored you, responses to your posts clog the message board and make this forum much less enjoyable. Consider shutting the hell up.

My clarifying question was not toward you. Here are the answers to your questions, call it volume II of the nsplayer's guide to ideal public policy: Welfare/food stamps/WIC/public housing: structure programs to help those truly in the most need in a generous way without incentivizing freeloading by those who could provide for themselves. This means getting rid of the welfare cliffs you see now where a person could work more and earn more money, but end up with less in their pocketbook due to a larger decrease in benefit payments. It's about having smart government, not less government IMHO. Unemployment: combine further fiscal and monetary stimulus with a revamping of the corporate tax code to simplify and reduce rates to remain competitive in a global marketplace. I'm also a big fan personally of public works projects and having the government temporarily hire (or contract hire) those who are employed to undertake the large-scale but relatively low-skill jobs that need doing. Taxes: I think the part of the fiscal cliff deal that was a mistake was making ~82% of the Bus tax cuts permanent; I think they should have been extended until we hit an economic benchmark considered healthy and then phased in again for all taxpayers. Kind of like what the Fed is doing with monetary policy...committing to extremely pro-growth policies (low interest rates, low taxes) in the short term until X is reached, then return to a more small "c" conservative set of policies after the long, slow recovery we're experiencing is complete. Minimum Wage: should be indexed to cost of living/inflation/some similar measure providing automatic increases or decreases as necessary. One minimum wage for the entire nation, eliminate differences between states. You also asked, "How do you make welfare solvent?" I'll ask you here, which program do you mean exactly? Generally it's not welfare that's driving deficits, it's the vastly larger programs like Medicare; the ways to make that program solvent long-term have been pretty extensively discussed by actual policy experts. So there ya have it...always happy to share my view but I continue to be surprised why people seem to care so much. I'm not sure what I'm offering is much different than a fairly standard Democratic party platform and it's pretty clear I'm basically Captain Joe Schmoe Air Force nav; maybe ask your Congressman these questions and see what he comes back with. How so? What have you presented that doesn't fit with what I'm saying? Cool story. I think I'm plenty grown up with a career and a kid and a mortgage not to be patronized that, "Oh well, one day when you grow up you'll be a conservative!" Come on...40% of non-hispanic whites 55 and older identify with the Democratic party...not sure how much older and wiser (or whiter) they need to get before suddenly seeing the light and crossing over to the GOP. You're right that the older you are the more likely it is that you'll be a conservative, but by no means is that the same as saying that everyone who gets older beyond a certain threshold of self-responsibility becomes a conservative. Rash, the way you use the forums makes it very difficult to respond since you just edit my quote rather than typing your responses separately. FWIW. If you want full control of your money (whatever that means...no taxes?) and don't think it's the government's job to help its people who are struggling, that type of arrangement can be hand in many areas around the world. It doesn't, however, exist in any advanced nation nor am I sure why anyone would want it to. WRT your sister, obviously you know her and I don't, seems like you're in the best position to help in whatever way you think is best. If that informs your views on public policy more broadly great, but I'm not sure if personal anecdotes are really prescriptive for society as a whole.

Dude. Is there a topic on this message board you don't feel compelled to respond to? I mean, for God's sake... 1) You haven't been to UPT 2) You're basing your opinion on...what exactly? Not seeing a UAV in the assignment night thread, but you still answer yes? And then say "oh yeah, nevermind. Someone else answered better than me..." 3) Not everything in the world revolves around navs and clock2map2gnd1!!1!! I get that you're really into politics and public policy and you like defending your thoughts in those threads. What I don't get is your inability to STFU when you don't know what you're talking about. Please stop, you're embarrassing yourself. Before you hit the "post" button and probably before you speak in public, think to yourself "do I know what I'm talking about here? Is it my place to speak on this topic?" If the answer to either of those isn't "Yes" with no caveats, don't. It's way better for everyone. It's kinda like a debrief, "was I directly spoken to? Can I answer this question in one word or less? If I answer this question is it possible to be seen as quibbling? Am I really sure this is the right time for me to speak?" /rant.

That damn ATM at the Viking....

You started a great thread, and you continue to fuck it up by talking. You're on probation - let the thread continue.

I suggest that you look at the decision from a different perspective i.e. one of minimizing regret. You're giving yourself a 70% chance of being offered continuation. Rejecting the CSB is clearly the better choice in this outcome -- you'll reasonably expect to live a long, healthy life and will be money ahead under High-3 50% (as opposed to REDUX). You run a less than likely (30%), but not insignificant, chance of non-continuation - in which case you would be given $100K separation pay. (I'd verify the number). The reserves and guard, to the best of my knowledge, would not be a reasonable expectation as they typically only take passed over O-3's. (I'd verify this as well). I assume you don't need the money today (i.e. can't put it to immediate use which would increase future cash flow). Additionally, it sounds like you might have to pay back a significant amount of the $30K if you seperate before 20 (for whatever reason -- again verify w/ MPC). As an 80yr old, which would you regret more? 1). Not getting the higher amount in retirement or 2) passing up the oppurtunity to get a little more than $100K leading up to seperation instead of a baseline of $100K (expected amount of seperaton without the CSB portion). While $100k won't come close to replacing the value of a 20 yr retirement, would $1XX (the 100k plus the pro-rated portion of CSB) really put you on your feet that much better? If you see the delta making a significant difference in your life (such as paying for law school or not), then take it. Otherwise reject and take your 70% chance of getting a 50% retirement at 20.

DFC rules are kinda funny anyway. Heck, I know a guy who got one just for flying from New York to Paris!