tyrius.

Nope, a theory. Well, let's hear it then. It is better to rent when home prices are falling. It's better to rent when you are not planning on staying in the house for a long period of time. It's better to rent when rents are significantly lower than your monthly mortgage payment would be (including property taxes, insurance, assessments, etc). There's a few for you, but purchasing your own home is most certainly not always the best financial decision.

I don't agree with Rhino's assessment that in a fixed rate mortage paying an extra $10 at the beginning saves you $90 in interest. The amortization table is set when the mortgage is created. If in the first payment I paid an extra $10 and didn't pay any extra for the remainder of the mortgage my final payment would be $10 less than it would have been originally. If you do that enough you'll pay off the mortgage early, but that $10 does not turn into $90 in interest savings. Also as I said in my first post, it's not a good idea for everyone. I was simply pointing out another option that could be considered.

I tell you what. I find this coming from you, to be absolutely hilarious!

No reason to be a cry baby about it.

Right, because mortgage financing and investing are just enthralling topics of conversation. Oh, and just because I don't use the stupid emoticons doesn't mean that I'm serious all the time.

It's not dumb, it just isn't as simple as some people make it out to be.

I was just trying to further explain the "investing" side of the argument.

It has nothing to do with being a downer and everything to do with trying to help out and provide information that may not have been considered. You can ignore it if you want, no skin off my back. One other thought that I have would be to make sure that you're time frame for the early payoff is correct. Oh and congrats

water and beer (sometimes wine) is about all I drink.

As long as you average more than a 4.15% return on your investment then it will cost you money to pay off your mortgage faster than required. The calculation isn't entirely straightforward as you have to consider net present value, future tax rates, liquidity concerns (if you pay off your mortgage you can not access that money), etc. But in it's simplest terms if you can invest the savings and earn more than your interest rate then paying off your mortgage early will actually COST you money and not save you money.

I would think about paying extra on the mortgage and make sure that it makes sense for your situation. You're paying just 4.5% interest which is tax deductible (if you itemize, which you should with a mortgage interest and property taxes). So in essence you're paying under 4 in real terms. Any investment that returns over 4% will mean that you'll end up with more in earnings than you would in savings. If it were me I'd look first Tony 401k to make sure I was saving sufficient funds for retirement. If that's true then look at your investment risk tolerance. The only thing I'm saying is that there is more to it than just looking at the savings.

Me too. I like it so much that I make my own! It's pretty interesting to watch 5 gallons of syrupy fluid bubble and churn to make beer.

I will not feed into the inflated ego that is the Palin's for even one second. I LOVE watching shows just like this though. There's a new one on Discovery about these 7 guys that go up to Alaska to start a gold mine. First episode looks promising. I REALLY hope they bring back the show where they took random people throughout the nation and put them in small cabins (homesteads) up in Alaska. That show was freaking awesome!

This is about the biggest load of crap that the NCAA has tried to sell people. They should've just said that they didn't want to rule Newton ineligible because that would be bad for ratings. I'd almost predict that we'll hear "new facts" after the season is over and THEN they'll rule against him.

You're certainly walking the line with your latest topics!

I would fully support them IF they had removed all names from their Afghan documents. They didn't and because of that people who were working with us have been outed. Also, the editorializing of some of their initial posts was not necessary and hurts them in the long run. Other than that (and those are pretty big), I'm all for it. I am definitely curious to see what they have on the big US bank though.

Well, it is slightly difficult to commit treason against a country that you are not a citizen of, do not live in, nor owe any allegience to.

The decision to drive my car is a CHOICE and the federal gov't does NOT have ability to randomly search me when I'm in my car. Also in terms of "rights" and the "right to fly", that isn't how the Bill of Rights works. It is NOT a comprehensive list of everything that citizens have a Right to do. I would suggest looking up the difference between negative and positive rights and how that applies to the Bill of Rights and actions by the federal gov't.

Nope.

I don't know the actual statute, but it's a federal law. You can search for Tyner TSA fine to get some news stories regarding it. Tyner is the "touch my junk" guy from San Diego. Once you enter the security area you can not leave. You can leave after just going into the ticketing area, but once you enter security you have to go through it. Here's one story. http://www.fox5sandiego.com/news/kswb-man-faces-fine-for-refusing-tsa-scan,0,7222070.story

I still can't figure out why they don't just show a stick figure or a body shaped outline instead of the naked image. What possible benefit do they get from seeing nipples and scrotums? Can't quite figure that one out.

People who purchased tickets prior to November 1st and then were subject to the search did NOT have any choice. They did not know that the searches would involve inappropriate touching. Now, here's how screwed up the whole process is. So, person A shows up and security tells them that they have to go through the scanner. They say they opt out and want manual screening. Then they go to get the manual screening and surprise, they're going to get felt up. That passenger can not legally choose NOT to go through with the search nor can he change his mind and go through the machine scanner. If he leaves the airport without going through the TSA security search then he will be subject to an $11,000 fine! It's ILLEGAL to leave the airport security area without clearing through all of the security procedures. How's that for choices? And that answers your question of "At what point is the gov't forcing the search of an individual."

Yep. I've flown quite a bit domestically in the last decade. I've been "searched" by TSA agents numerous times. This typically involved the use of metal detecting wands and maybe their hands in a limited manner (typically ankles and shoulders). I've never once had nor seen anyone else have their genitals and/or breasts directly touched by a TSA agent. Never experienced it, never saw it, never even heard of it happening. That's because prior to this month it was NOT part of the TSA pat down procedure. Pisotle, as of July, the new TSA director has changed the procedures. If you don't believe this to be the case then you haven't been paying attention.

You're wrong. Completely and utterly incorrect; nothing in the above quote is accurate. I don't understand why people form an opinion on something when they do not truly know the facts of the situation. I actually don't understand how you can even think that these searches "have been going (sic) forever". Have you not been actively listening/reading the news stories? They are all clear that the "enhanced pat downs" are new. The head of the TSA has even stated that he choose not to inform the public that the changes were coming.

There are currently NO instances, except the new airport security policy, where gov't authorities have the authority to touch you wherever they want without, at the VERY LEAST, probable cause. It simply doesn't exist. This new policy is a drastic change in what the gov't is allowed to do to random law abiding citizens.