My drug cycle time is dictated by the insurance company. In the very beginning I was able to choose either a 30 or a 90 day cycle. Now the insurance people will only pay twice for a 30 day supply and the refills thereafter must be for 90 days. I think my first online drug orders were with a network pharmacy and not with a brick and mortar store. That too was dictated by the insurance plan of the day. Something very interesting happened at that time. While the rule was I had to order 90 days worth of pills, they would ship me a full supply any time I requested it. It was due to that glitch(?) that I was able to stock up on pills so that I always had a 90 day supply in reserve. Today, when I refill a prescription, it's because I have to start tapping into the reserved supply.
When the online prescription service died, I believe I switched to Walgreens. They too would send me e-mails which I never, or rarely, responded to. Most of that was due to security concerns (or personal paranoia), but I wanted the liberty to be able to refill my drugs on my schedule, not on theirs. Plus, some prescriptions were temporary, but the emails kept badgering me that it's time to refill. There was no way to tell them they are wasting their time. Soooo ... I decided the web sites were much more user friendly. I discovered, however, that the websites are not in sync with the real stores. They are in fact two separate systems with two separate sets of records. As I pointed out earlier, the web pharmacy is really a addition to the main site whose purpose is to sell you everything but drugs.
I have it all down pat now. Each of my prescriptions have a 90 day cache. I ignore every phone call, instant message, and e-mail from all the drug stores I deal with. However, I do have web accounts with all of them. When I am ready to reorder, I go online and do it. More often than not it works out. When it doesn't, they can keep the order I didn't request until it rots on their shelves. If it's not ready when I get there, I'll wait for it right here in front of your till until the pharmacist gets around to filling my needs. Thank you very much.
[SPLIT] Software Updates
Forum rules
Post a new topic to begin a chat.
Any topic is acceptable, and topic drift is permissible.
Post a new topic to begin a chat.
Any topic is acceptable, and topic drift is permissible.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
Up until Obamacare messed things up, I was getting almost all of my scripts and WalMart for either 0 or 4 dollars each.
I decided to go with a new drug plan with a different company, and now although my payment to the insurance company is higher, all of my Tier 1 and 2 drugs are 0 co-pay. Tier 3 is what will kill you with them.
Now, although Walgreens prices are a little higher than Walmart, I switched to them and got a new drug plan.
Walgreens is just up the street and Walmart moved way down south, about 7 more miles south from where they used to be.
On this new plan though, I have 0 co-pay on Tier 1 & 2, and like always Tier 3 is the killer for me.
I still have to go to Walmart for a couple of OTC that Walgreens don't have for the lower price, and Debi has to get her Insulin from Walmart, when they have it, they are usually out of stock on their own brand which is cheaper for her.
I tried Mail Order a couple of times, it worked out great, much cheaper, even on Tier 3 drugs. But this was before Obamacare kicked in. I think it put a lot of the mail order businesses out of business.
If your drug plan covered mail order orders for a cheaper price, then you could get them at your local pharmacy for the same price as mail order.
As an aside: I demanded my doctor put me on a Nebulizer.
I did this for two reasons:
The first is, tending to my late wife, I had to often rush her to the hospital, and all they would do is give her a nebulizer treatment and send her home, then bill me a huge fee.
The second is, the drugs used in a nebulizer are considered peripheral equipment costs and covered by your supplemental insurance, which has nothing to do with donut holes or drug plans.
Although a lot of drug companies have either discontinued the liquid for nebulizers, or upped the price considerably, because they want folks to buy their 500 dollar inhalers instead.
I'm getting my blended albuterol liquid in measured doses for the nebulizer for around 10 bucks a month.
The equivalent in a generic aerosol is 45 bucks or in a name brand around 125 to 175 dollars.
There are a few drugs I've found for nebulizers that fit the bill for the inhalers in nebulizer form, but the drug company is charging the same price as the inhaler price. But if he would prescribe it for me, and the company can get it, then my supplemental should have to pay for it, from what I understand. They can decline saying I don't need it too.
You have to have a script to buy darn near anything these days, even a nebulizer, which is nothing but an air pump.
OK, off my soapbox.
I decided to go with a new drug plan with a different company, and now although my payment to the insurance company is higher, all of my Tier 1 and 2 drugs are 0 co-pay. Tier 3 is what will kill you with them.
Now, although Walgreens prices are a little higher than Walmart, I switched to them and got a new drug plan.
Walgreens is just up the street and Walmart moved way down south, about 7 more miles south from where they used to be.
On this new plan though, I have 0 co-pay on Tier 1 & 2, and like always Tier 3 is the killer for me.
I still have to go to Walmart for a couple of OTC that Walgreens don't have for the lower price, and Debi has to get her Insulin from Walmart, when they have it, they are usually out of stock on their own brand which is cheaper for her.
I tried Mail Order a couple of times, it worked out great, much cheaper, even on Tier 3 drugs. But this was before Obamacare kicked in. I think it put a lot of the mail order businesses out of business.
If your drug plan covered mail order orders for a cheaper price, then you could get them at your local pharmacy for the same price as mail order.
As an aside: I demanded my doctor put me on a Nebulizer.
I did this for two reasons:
The first is, tending to my late wife, I had to often rush her to the hospital, and all they would do is give her a nebulizer treatment and send her home, then bill me a huge fee.
The second is, the drugs used in a nebulizer are considered peripheral equipment costs and covered by your supplemental insurance, which has nothing to do with donut holes or drug plans.
Although a lot of drug companies have either discontinued the liquid for nebulizers, or upped the price considerably, because they want folks to buy their 500 dollar inhalers instead.
I'm getting my blended albuterol liquid in measured doses for the nebulizer for around 10 bucks a month.
The equivalent in a generic aerosol is 45 bucks or in a name brand around 125 to 175 dollars.
There are a few drugs I've found for nebulizers that fit the bill for the inhalers in nebulizer form, but the drug company is charging the same price as the inhaler price. But if he would prescribe it for me, and the company can get it, then my supplemental should have to pay for it, from what I understand. They can decline saying I don't need it too.
You have to have a script to buy darn near anything these days, even a nebulizer, which is nothing but an air pump.
OK, off my soapbox.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
Yeah, I have to laugh at the spam mail I'm getting during this enrollment period. Just about everything short of staying in the hospital would be "free" from these guys. The zero co-pay would actually be a good thing if I didn't have to pay for the insurance premiums first. Reality is that nothing is free when it comes to health care. Our good president spent a lot of time promising a reduction in the overall cost of drugs. He had a plan and was leaning on the Big Pharma people. A major announcement was promised for last summer. Here we are almost into winter and the only announcement made was that he can't do anything about it after all.
If the system doesn't change, and I have no reason to think it will, you are a prime example of what healthcare is coming to in this country. People who can afford it will get it and be cared for. Good luck to the rest of us.
If the system doesn't change, and I have no reason to think it will, you are a prime example of what healthcare is coming to in this country. People who can afford it will get it and be cared for. Good luck to the rest of us.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
Well, at least Trump made it possible for us to get our scripts from overseas.
That was not at all possible until mid-2018. I'm not talking about importing drugs here.
The drug has to be one manufactured in the U.S. by a U.S. pharmaceutical company and shipped overseas for sale.
Then and only then can an overseas or Canadian company ship the same drug back to the U.S. in unaltered packaging.
The FDA has been the one trying to stop this, and are still seizing some in customs. So it is still risky to try.
He's also done a few other things, such as, an existing drug price cannot be raised more than the national rate of inflation.
This may have backfired since newly released drugs are priced well above what pharmaceutical companies used to use as their markup.
He's also working with Medicare to get the the out of pocket cost reduced for the elderly.
By the way, this one has been blocked in the House every time it was presented.
The individual states have much more control over local prices than the federal government has!
Here in Tennessee, regarding the drug portion of the Tenncare program.
Rather than offering Tier 1 and Tier 2 drugs at 0 co-pay, after you pay the monthly premium.
Keeping the monthly premium the same, but adding a 4 dollar co-pay to Tier 1 and Tier 2 drugs, would allow them to apply a 50% reduction in the price of Tier 3 drugs, regardless of who your drug insurance plan is through.
Unfortunately, the Upper House blocked it all three times it was presented in different forms.
Whoever added the doughnut hole to drug plans needed to be shot.
That was not at all possible until mid-2018. I'm not talking about importing drugs here.
The drug has to be one manufactured in the U.S. by a U.S. pharmaceutical company and shipped overseas for sale.
Then and only then can an overseas or Canadian company ship the same drug back to the U.S. in unaltered packaging.
The FDA has been the one trying to stop this, and are still seizing some in customs. So it is still risky to try.
He's also done a few other things, such as, an existing drug price cannot be raised more than the national rate of inflation.
This may have backfired since newly released drugs are priced well above what pharmaceutical companies used to use as their markup.
He's also working with Medicare to get the the out of pocket cost reduced for the elderly.
By the way, this one has been blocked in the House every time it was presented.
The individual states have much more control over local prices than the federal government has!
Here in Tennessee, regarding the drug portion of the Tenncare program.
Rather than offering Tier 1 and Tier 2 drugs at 0 co-pay, after you pay the monthly premium.
Keeping the monthly premium the same, but adding a 4 dollar co-pay to Tier 1 and Tier 2 drugs, would allow them to apply a 50% reduction in the price of Tier 3 drugs, regardless of who your drug insurance plan is through.
Unfortunately, the Upper House blocked it all three times it was presented in different forms.
Whoever added the doughnut hole to drug plans needed to be shot.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
"Whoever added the doughnut hole to drug plans needed to be shot."
You would think, but that is exactly what is keeping the system solvent these days.
If I were elected president I'd make it illegal for insurance companies, or federal and state entitlements, to cover the costs of prescription drugs in any way, shape, or form. We would all be buying retail from the most cost effective source. I firmly believe some fair competition would level the playing field.
You would think, but that is exactly what is keeping the system solvent these days.
If I were elected president I'd make it illegal for insurance companies, or federal and state entitlements, to cover the costs of prescription drugs in any way, shape, or form. We would all be buying retail from the most cost effective source. I firmly believe some fair competition would level the playing field.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
I do agree with you in a way.
Except I would get the government out of the healthcare business entirely, but keeping control of the insurance companies so they don't keep screwing people over.
We need controls, but not all this ridiculous stuff that comes up when the government gets involved.
I agree with the fair competition helping to level the playing field.
But I though you leaned toward socialized medicine?
It would be cheaper for the government to control insurance companies, and/or make all required prescription drugs free, and they would pay the pharmaceutical companies. Trouble there too is, the pharmaceutical companies would then start price gouging the government.
If one company can make a great profit selling a drug for 88 cents, why are the other companies 12.95 and 18.95 for the exact same drug?
I do think the big pharma companies get together on a lot things and have their own form of Price Fixing.
How they do it is by REFUSING to make a certain generic product for sale, except in their own specialized overpriced delivery system. A good example is Epinepherin (sp). I've heard it only costs 17 dollars a gallon to make. Yet the EpiPen sells for an exorbitant price.
Like my inhalers. The medicines in those inhalers is cheap also, but my inhalers are over 500 bucks. The only thing covered by patents is the delivery device, not the drug inside.
But no one will sell only the drug, in a lower cost delivery device.
And when Insulin was invented, the inventors gave it to Big Pharma for FREE so it wouldn't cost much to those who needed it. Well, you see what Big Pharma has done! Put it in patented delivery systems and charge exorbitant prices.
It should not be this way, and the government really needs to step in and allow other manufacturers to make those drugs that are no longer covered by patent, if the original patent holders refuse to make them for a fair price or in a bottle like some insulin comes where you need to use a syringe.
Rather than using an ALL DAY inhaler drug that costs 500 dollars a month, with serious side affects.
I'm using a short 4 to 6 times a day nebulizer, for which the drug is only 10 bucks a month, with few to no side affects.
I think I mentioned, since I have a Nebulizer the drug that goes into is not considered a drug but a peripheral of the device, so is covered by my supplemental insurance.
Trouble here too is, the drug the doctor really wants me on, and could be used diluted in a nebulizer, Big Pharma is using in an aerosol inhaler, so won't sell it in liquid form for nebulizers. The patent ran out years ago, but Big Pharma is still controlling it, which is also illegal but nothing is ever done to Big Pharma.
Except I would get the government out of the healthcare business entirely, but keeping control of the insurance companies so they don't keep screwing people over.
We need controls, but not all this ridiculous stuff that comes up when the government gets involved.
I agree with the fair competition helping to level the playing field.
But I though you leaned toward socialized medicine?
It would be cheaper for the government to control insurance companies, and/or make all required prescription drugs free, and they would pay the pharmaceutical companies. Trouble there too is, the pharmaceutical companies would then start price gouging the government.
If one company can make a great profit selling a drug for 88 cents, why are the other companies 12.95 and 18.95 for the exact same drug?
I do think the big pharma companies get together on a lot things and have their own form of Price Fixing.
How they do it is by REFUSING to make a certain generic product for sale, except in their own specialized overpriced delivery system. A good example is Epinepherin (sp). I've heard it only costs 17 dollars a gallon to make. Yet the EpiPen sells for an exorbitant price.
Like my inhalers. The medicines in those inhalers is cheap also, but my inhalers are over 500 bucks. The only thing covered by patents is the delivery device, not the drug inside.
But no one will sell only the drug, in a lower cost delivery device.
And when Insulin was invented, the inventors gave it to Big Pharma for FREE so it wouldn't cost much to those who needed it. Well, you see what Big Pharma has done! Put it in patented delivery systems and charge exorbitant prices.
It should not be this way, and the government really needs to step in and allow other manufacturers to make those drugs that are no longer covered by patent, if the original patent holders refuse to make them for a fair price or in a bottle like some insulin comes where you need to use a syringe.
Rather than using an ALL DAY inhaler drug that costs 500 dollars a month, with serious side affects.
I'm using a short 4 to 6 times a day nebulizer, for which the drug is only 10 bucks a month, with few to no side affects.
I think I mentioned, since I have a Nebulizer the drug that goes into is not considered a drug but a peripheral of the device, so is covered by my supplemental insurance.
Trouble here too is, the drug the doctor really wants me on, and could be used diluted in a nebulizer, Big Pharma is using in an aerosol inhaler, so won't sell it in liquid form for nebulizers. The patent ran out years ago, but Big Pharma is still controlling it, which is also illegal but nothing is ever done to Big Pharma.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
I find it difficult to identify with any brand of governing. There are some theories that would apply to any government in a general sense, but my favoring any one of them should not brand me one way or the other.
America at the moment is one of the most successful and wealthiest nations on the planet. There are several nations, in fact just about all others, where healthcare is provided free as a condition of citizenship. A few have a minimum income guarantee, and others have experimented with free education. Wouldn't that be a wonderful place to live if every citizen had enough money to live on, good healthcare, and a decent education all provided for them as a citizen of said country? It's rather idealistic and can even be seen as socialistic, but would it not be wonderful nonetheless? I also strongly believe a free economy is the best way to generate the resources that would pay for all those entitlements. Capitalism and free enterprise has catapulted American to the highest and most admired of all economies.
It is absolutely counter productive to impose profit restraints on any business because it works against the basic premise for their success, i.e., to maximize profits. Those who might abuse their freedom of operation would be held in check by the competition and the consumers of their goods and services. All this seemingly fantasy is the basis of life in America, along with a few individual freedoms that have gone not cited. What could go wrong?
A lot can go wrong, obviously, and thus the need for governance arises. Exactly what kind of governance is what brought us to the two-party political system we now are suffering from. The see-saw of liberal vs conservative leaderships has served us well as has the three part system of governance we have adopted. 243 years after it's inception, this nation is now at a crisis point. I don't think the current crisis originated within the system, but instead I see it being attacked from the outside by those who have not be as successful as we have been. This is not a new phenomena in human behavior, but it is the first time in our history that we are facing questions about the structure itself.
Change is good and the American way of life is amenable to bringing it about. To my dismay, the changes I see in force today are destructive. The rights of our citizens, the political institutions, economic stability, and the constitution itself are all being attacked. Some see the enablers of all this as heroes while others see them as enemies of our sovereignty. There is no longer room for compromise and reconciliation. As long as that attitude is prevalent, we will be doomed as a nation.
America at the moment is one of the most successful and wealthiest nations on the planet. There are several nations, in fact just about all others, where healthcare is provided free as a condition of citizenship. A few have a minimum income guarantee, and others have experimented with free education. Wouldn't that be a wonderful place to live if every citizen had enough money to live on, good healthcare, and a decent education all provided for them as a citizen of said country? It's rather idealistic and can even be seen as socialistic, but would it not be wonderful nonetheless? I also strongly believe a free economy is the best way to generate the resources that would pay for all those entitlements. Capitalism and free enterprise has catapulted American to the highest and most admired of all economies.
It is absolutely counter productive to impose profit restraints on any business because it works against the basic premise for their success, i.e., to maximize profits. Those who might abuse their freedom of operation would be held in check by the competition and the consumers of their goods and services. All this seemingly fantasy is the basis of life in America, along with a few individual freedoms that have gone not cited. What could go wrong?
A lot can go wrong, obviously, and thus the need for governance arises. Exactly what kind of governance is what brought us to the two-party political system we now are suffering from. The see-saw of liberal vs conservative leaderships has served us well as has the three part system of governance we have adopted. 243 years after it's inception, this nation is now at a crisis point. I don't think the current crisis originated within the system, but instead I see it being attacked from the outside by those who have not be as successful as we have been. This is not a new phenomena in human behavior, but it is the first time in our history that we are facing questions about the structure itself.
Change is good and the American way of life is amenable to bringing it about. To my dismay, the changes I see in force today are destructive. The rights of our citizens, the political institutions, economic stability, and the constitution itself are all being attacked. Some see the enablers of all this as heroes while others see them as enemies of our sovereignty. There is no longer room for compromise and reconciliation. As long as that attitude is prevalent, we will be doomed as a nation.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
There is no reason all of what you named could be provided for without our country becoming a socialist nation.
Don't forget, I was born and raised in St. Louis where many of the things you pay for elsewhere is available for free.
I have a friend who's daughter nearly died because socialized medicine does not cover what she has.
They had to raise over half a million dollars to get her treated.
Because of this, and many stories like it, I would say socialized medicine is a failure, especially when you see how long people have to wait for something that needs to be done right away.
Raising the minimum wage does more harm that good. It causes hyperinflation, which totally destroys the purpose of the raise, and strikes grief and hardship on those with fixed incomes.
When you have poly-TICK-ians on a 170 thousand a years salary becoming multi-millionaires, there is definitely something wrong there. They are ALL on the TAKE, accepting gifts and bribe money to sway their votes or what new laws they try to get passed. Politicians were never meant to be paid more than a token sum to start with.
So, our 243 year old system is being raped by those who are supposed to maintain it.
And since THEY make the Laws, they give themselves raise after raise after raise, and are above the Law in most cases.
THIS is what needs to be fixed FIRST, then there will be plenty of money to handle the things the people should be getting.
Don't forget, I was born and raised in St. Louis where many of the things you pay for elsewhere is available for free.
I have a friend who's daughter nearly died because socialized medicine does not cover what she has.
They had to raise over half a million dollars to get her treated.
Because of this, and many stories like it, I would say socialized medicine is a failure, especially when you see how long people have to wait for something that needs to be done right away.
Raising the minimum wage does more harm that good. It causes hyperinflation, which totally destroys the purpose of the raise, and strikes grief and hardship on those with fixed incomes.
When you have poly-TICK-ians on a 170 thousand a years salary becoming multi-millionaires, there is definitely something wrong there. They are ALL on the TAKE, accepting gifts and bribe money to sway their votes or what new laws they try to get passed. Politicians were never meant to be paid more than a token sum to start with.
So, our 243 year old system is being raped by those who are supposed to maintain it.
And since THEY make the Laws, they give themselves raise after raise after raise, and are above the Law in most cases.
THIS is what needs to be fixed FIRST, then there will be plenty of money to handle the things the people should be getting.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
The socialized medicine to which I refer is an ideology. It doesn't exist in practice. Those shortcomings you cite are very real in those countries where healthcare for all it's citizens is a given. If this country, America, by some miraculous turn of events should correct the ways of it's corrupt political leaders and actually come up with money to provide healthcare for everybody, what do you think it should be called? It doesn't matter what you call it because everybody would have it to the same extent. If that isn't an element of socialism, then I don't understand the meaning of the word.
I'd have to question the economic reasoning for hyperinflation being the result of a raise in minimum wages. I had to look this up and must say I was surprised to see that the first minimum wage standard was set in 1938 at $0.25/hr. There have been several increases in that minimum wage number but there has not been a single year of hyperinflation in all the 81 years of its existence. Inflation can arguably be linked to minimum wages but there is not a cause and effect relationship, and there certainly has not been anything hyper about it.
FWIW: Hyperinflation is when the prices of goods and services rise more than 50% a month.
The corruption to which you refer has the effect of redistributing the wealth. There is only so much wealth in existence so that there will always be poor people as a result of there also being wealthy people. When those wealthy people devise schemes to acquire more wealth (money) it comes out of the pockets of those who re not wealthy. This serves to widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Eventually there is no middle. It turns into rich and poor with nothing in between. And, as you can readily see today, it is those people who have the wealth that also have the power. As the redistribution intensifies a very very small number of people are left to rule all the others. This is the objective of the current administration in Washington. It has been going on before them, but those in power today are accelerating the pace.
I'd have to question the economic reasoning for hyperinflation being the result of a raise in minimum wages. I had to look this up and must say I was surprised to see that the first minimum wage standard was set in 1938 at $0.25/hr. There have been several increases in that minimum wage number but there has not been a single year of hyperinflation in all the 81 years of its existence. Inflation can arguably be linked to minimum wages but there is not a cause and effect relationship, and there certainly has not been anything hyper about it.
FWIW: Hyperinflation is when the prices of goods and services rise more than 50% a month.
The corruption to which you refer has the effect of redistributing the wealth. There is only so much wealth in existence so that there will always be poor people as a result of there also being wealthy people. When those wealthy people devise schemes to acquire more wealth (money) it comes out of the pockets of those who re not wealthy. This serves to widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Eventually there is no middle. It turns into rich and poor with nothing in between. And, as you can readily see today, it is those people who have the wealth that also have the power. As the redistribution intensifies a very very small number of people are left to rule all the others. This is the objective of the current administration in Washington. It has been going on before them, but those in power today are accelerating the pace.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
My ancestors came from Germany where they suffered gross hyperinflation.
Well, it wasn't what is termed hyperinflation, but it was higher inflation than should have been.
I don't need to look back 80 years, I only need to look back 30 to 40 years to see how fast things have gone up.
Let's start with December of 1969 when I bought a brand new car for 875 dollars.
Bought an Identical car the following year for 1,000.00, and the year after that for 1,200.00
Two years later 1974, I paid 3,600.00 for a new car.
In 1976, the car I bought if I didn't take the SE would have been 5,800.00
I had money to burn so splurged and bought the Smokey and the Bandit car for 16 grand.
In 1977 I bought a little Chevy LUV pick-up truck for 7,000.00
In 1981 a Cadillac for 14,000.00 But most cars were only around 8 grand.
Now, if you look at the rate of inflation, it has been fairly steady at around 3% per year.
The price of cars has climbed much faster than inflation, and much faster than the average salary.
Look at the price of homes. Although they vary by location considerably. Pick an area and see how fast they have gone up compared to salaries for that same area.
I have found very few items that have not gone up faster than the claimed rate of inflation, and I've seen most products make a major jump after every time the minimum wage was raised. It's like an excuse to up prices.
You can't find a decent car for under 50 grand these days. And I'm not talking about those hazardous death traps that should have never been allowed on our nations highways and byways.
Gotta Run frau home with a carload of groceries to unload.
Well, it wasn't what is termed hyperinflation, but it was higher inflation than should have been.
I don't need to look back 80 years, I only need to look back 30 to 40 years to see how fast things have gone up.
Let's start with December of 1969 when I bought a brand new car for 875 dollars.
Bought an Identical car the following year for 1,000.00, and the year after that for 1,200.00
Two years later 1974, I paid 3,600.00 for a new car.
In 1976, the car I bought if I didn't take the SE would have been 5,800.00
I had money to burn so splurged and bought the Smokey and the Bandit car for 16 grand.
In 1977 I bought a little Chevy LUV pick-up truck for 7,000.00
In 1981 a Cadillac for 14,000.00 But most cars were only around 8 grand.
Now, if you look at the rate of inflation, it has been fairly steady at around 3% per year.
The price of cars has climbed much faster than inflation, and much faster than the average salary.
Look at the price of homes. Although they vary by location considerably. Pick an area and see how fast they have gone up compared to salaries for that same area.
I have found very few items that have not gone up faster than the claimed rate of inflation, and I've seen most products make a major jump after every time the minimum wage was raised. It's like an excuse to up prices.
You can't find a decent car for under 50 grand these days. And I'm not talking about those hazardous death traps that should have never been allowed on our nations highways and byways.
Gotta Run frau home with a carload of groceries to unload.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
At 3% inflation prices will double in 20 years. Sounds reasonable unless you happen to be on a fixed income. I'm coming up on 20 years of retirement next March so that we can assume prices have doubled since I left Motorola. At the time I left I was going to be receiving 80% of my salary at retirement. The only COLA I've seen is from Social Security benefits and that has always been significantly less than the published rate of inflation. The bottom line is that I can now only buy half the things I could buy back in 1999.
Inflation is an average that takes into account the excessively high increases as well as those things that do not increase or get cheaper, such as electronics. The effects of inflation you actually experience has a lot to do with your spending needs and your lifestyle. On average the cost of living here in O'Fallon is 20% less than it was up in Cook County. That allows me to beat inflation for a few years. When you moved down south I'm sure that you experienced the same thing. It wasn't as expensive to live there and that gave you a few years advantage fighting inflation.
So, what exactly causes inflation? There are two major factors which are basic elements of economics. When the population increases there are more people available to buy goods and services. This increased demand is met by higher prices not because the industries are greedy bastards (even though we know they are) but because people are willing to pay more for items they really want; automobiles for example. The cost of labor and materials also contributes to inflation. This is the element where minimum wages come into play. When the cost of everything else in the supply chain increases the end product must reflect that change. So, when things are going along smoothly, people are buying stuff like crazy, and their employer is paying them ridiculous wages, and yes there will be inflation. There are economies where all of that is regulated, such as those following communism and socialism. You have pointed out more than once how well that goes.
Eliminating inflation would in effect lower the standard of living. For guys like you and me that would be wonderful. For people pursuing the American Dream, that means they would lose their incentive. When I look at the unemployment figures today and the power brokers say we should be happy because more people than ever are working, think about what I just described. More people working always means a greater demand for goods and services. That situation is a major contributor to inflation. Wealthy people become even more wealthy with no effort at all on their part as a result of inflation. Their increase in wealth makes me personally poorer. Why there is so much admiration for the guy in charge that brought this about is confounding.
Inflation is an average that takes into account the excessively high increases as well as those things that do not increase or get cheaper, such as electronics. The effects of inflation you actually experience has a lot to do with your spending needs and your lifestyle. On average the cost of living here in O'Fallon is 20% less than it was up in Cook County. That allows me to beat inflation for a few years. When you moved down south I'm sure that you experienced the same thing. It wasn't as expensive to live there and that gave you a few years advantage fighting inflation.
So, what exactly causes inflation? There are two major factors which are basic elements of economics. When the population increases there are more people available to buy goods and services. This increased demand is met by higher prices not because the industries are greedy bastards (even though we know they are) but because people are willing to pay more for items they really want; automobiles for example. The cost of labor and materials also contributes to inflation. This is the element where minimum wages come into play. When the cost of everything else in the supply chain increases the end product must reflect that change. So, when things are going along smoothly, people are buying stuff like crazy, and their employer is paying them ridiculous wages, and yes there will be inflation. There are economies where all of that is regulated, such as those following communism and socialism. You have pointed out more than once how well that goes.
Eliminating inflation would in effect lower the standard of living. For guys like you and me that would be wonderful. For people pursuing the American Dream, that means they would lose their incentive. When I look at the unemployment figures today and the power brokers say we should be happy because more people than ever are working, think about what I just described. More people working always means a greater demand for goods and services. That situation is a major contributor to inflation. Wealthy people become even more wealthy with no effort at all on their part as a result of inflation. Their increase in wealth makes me personally poorer. Why there is so much admiration for the guy in charge that brought this about is confounding.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
There's really nothing wrong with prices increasing, all businesses need to make a buck or two.
I understand supply and demand all to well, after being in the perishable business for most of my life.
Where the problem comes in is when those on fixed income are not getting equivalent raises and are often short changed in the beginning.
Based on the average price of rent, utilities, and food. SS increases have not kept up with the basic needs of retirees.
In fact, they failed to give an increase at all many years, but increased the cost of Medicare which is taken out of SS.
Even when they did give an increase, they raised Medicare more than the amount of the increase, especially for those of us on really low monthly checks.
My SS was based on 350 per month rent, 175 per month utilities, and 280 per month food and sundries. They don't take into account clothing, taxes, and health insurance.
My SS is only about 100 dollars per month higher than when I started taking it.
But expenses have more than doubled!
This is why I hoped Trump could push through the minimum SS check amount of 1200 dollars. It would help those of us one the bottom of the barrel as far as SS check amounts go.
I understand supply and demand all to well, after being in the perishable business for most of my life.
Where the problem comes in is when those on fixed income are not getting equivalent raises and are often short changed in the beginning.
Based on the average price of rent, utilities, and food. SS increases have not kept up with the basic needs of retirees.
In fact, they failed to give an increase at all many years, but increased the cost of Medicare which is taken out of SS.
Even when they did give an increase, they raised Medicare more than the amount of the increase, especially for those of us on really low monthly checks.
My SS was based on 350 per month rent, 175 per month utilities, and 280 per month food and sundries. They don't take into account clothing, taxes, and health insurance.
My SS is only about 100 dollars per month higher than when I started taking it.
But expenses have more than doubled!
This is why I hoped Trump could push through the minimum SS check amount of 1200 dollars. It would help those of us one the bottom of the barrel as far as SS check amounts go.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
We are all benefiting, albeit not equally, from the huge tax cut enacted by congress. Donald Trump, of course, was a tremendous supporter of that package and received as much criticism as he did accolades for it. We can debate until the end of time regarding the merits of that tax cut, but the intention is irrelevant. The economic fact is that the government is now taking in less money as a result of that cut.
You know where I'm going here because I have talked about this before. Both you and I will be affected by the realities. The main reality is that when there is less income there must-needs be less expenses. That's the absolute rule you and I must follow, but governments work a little differently. They can spend more than they take in because for one thing they can print up more money if they want to. Typically they don't want to so that borrowing to pay the bills is their solution. Long term Treasury Bills is the vehicle of choice for keeping the US Treasury solvent. That works up to a point. You need buyers in order to sell your bonds, and when your buyers happen to be the same people with whom you are in a trade war, the buyers market starts to dry up. When there are not enough buyers of your government bonds, then there are only two alternatives. One is to go bankrupt and the other is to finally reduce spending. That is the situation going into next year's federal budget.
The proponents of aforementioned tax cut anticipated this situation where we would not be able to pay our bills. Thus they decided that at some point in the future (2020 in this case) expenses must be cut. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are the targets for huge cuts because they are the greatest expense after paying off the interest on those Treasure Bonds. The tax cuts are in the trillions of dollars range and that is what you can expect to be cut from Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, One of the other reasons this is certain to occur is that it fits into the philosophy of getting the government down to size and out of the healthcare business. Both those ideas are very Republican in origin. In theory that sounds great. In reality you and I are going to have less handed out to us, not more.
You have doubts? Today the news is about the Department of Agriculture changing it's policies regarding people who are receiving food stamps. They must work a minimum number of hours or be disqualified. The estimate is that 750,000 people will soon no longer qualify for food stamps. This change is supported by the same guy who you claim wants to give you a minimum income from Social Security.
You know where I'm going here because I have talked about this before. Both you and I will be affected by the realities. The main reality is that when there is less income there must-needs be less expenses. That's the absolute rule you and I must follow, but governments work a little differently. They can spend more than they take in because for one thing they can print up more money if they want to. Typically they don't want to so that borrowing to pay the bills is their solution. Long term Treasury Bills is the vehicle of choice for keeping the US Treasury solvent. That works up to a point. You need buyers in order to sell your bonds, and when your buyers happen to be the same people with whom you are in a trade war, the buyers market starts to dry up. When there are not enough buyers of your government bonds, then there are only two alternatives. One is to go bankrupt and the other is to finally reduce spending. That is the situation going into next year's federal budget.
The proponents of aforementioned tax cut anticipated this situation where we would not be able to pay our bills. Thus they decided that at some point in the future (2020 in this case) expenses must be cut. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are the targets for huge cuts because they are the greatest expense after paying off the interest on those Treasure Bonds. The tax cuts are in the trillions of dollars range and that is what you can expect to be cut from Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, One of the other reasons this is certain to occur is that it fits into the philosophy of getting the government down to size and out of the healthcare business. Both those ideas are very Republican in origin. In theory that sounds great. In reality you and I are going to have less handed out to us, not more.
You have doubts? Today the news is about the Department of Agriculture changing it's policies regarding people who are receiving food stamps. They must work a minimum number of hours or be disqualified. The estimate is that 750,000 people will soon no longer qualify for food stamps. This change is supported by the same guy who you claim wants to give you a minimum income from Social Security.
Last edited by yogi on 05 Dec 2019, 20:42, edited 1 time in total.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
Trump has requested a $338.00 increase in Social Security instead of a percentage, in an attempt to get the Dems to pass this since they killed the minimum of 1200 dollar SS checks. They killed this too!
Then they turned around and want to give themselves another 8,700 bucks a month raise.
Nearly every thing Trump has tried to do to help the citizens, the Dems have blocked or killed.
They don't like an OUTSIDER meddling in the Criminal Activities of both parties.
Food stamps are almost a joke. Those who need them can't get them, and those who do get them don't really need them.
We have several generations now who have learned how to live on government dole without working and living fairly high on hog to boot.
I know, a few of my rental houses were paid for by HUD, and there was nothing at all wrong with the women who lived in them. I didn't establish them as HUD houses, the tenants themselves did. I just had to deal with all the inspections and upgrades they wanted. But I was fortunate, one of the gals did all the work herself to make sure she would get to stay there after she managed to get HUD involved.
We have a family down the street from us. The husband does work as a stock clerk for a large shoe store chain. I have no idea what he makes. The wife stays home to take care of three or more foster kids, all of them teens. Occasionally she may have a pre-teen on a temporary basis, and she also takes one out of Juvenal for only a month or two.
She told us we should consider taking an early teen ourselves, but not necessarily a juvie because they can be trouble.
But all of the early and mid teens she's taken care of were never a problem. Some are there for only a few months, because of a marital dispute by their parents, others have no parents or relatives and are with her for three or four years.
The pay range or taking them in is anywhere from around 300 to 800 per month, it actually goes down the older they get. Juvies pay 1000 to 1200 per month, but steal you blind, destroy stuff, or violate the foster care rules.
She has them doing almost all the work around the house, including helping to prepare meals. She or her husband takes care of all the laundry because they are not allowed downstairs in the basement for any reason. She's also not allowed to make a bedroom in the basement for them either, even with the proper fire exits, another foster care rule.
Over the course of a year, she averages about 2500 bucks a month tax free income, but has to provide tons of receipts for it too. But that has never been a problem, they expect teens to eat a lot, even if they don't, hi hi.
I have actually though about perhaps taking a single teen, but the frau said no, she's not giving up her office, hi hi.
Then they turned around and want to give themselves another 8,700 bucks a month raise.
Nearly every thing Trump has tried to do to help the citizens, the Dems have blocked or killed.
They don't like an OUTSIDER meddling in the Criminal Activities of both parties.
Food stamps are almost a joke. Those who need them can't get them, and those who do get them don't really need them.
We have several generations now who have learned how to live on government dole without working and living fairly high on hog to boot.
I know, a few of my rental houses were paid for by HUD, and there was nothing at all wrong with the women who lived in them. I didn't establish them as HUD houses, the tenants themselves did. I just had to deal with all the inspections and upgrades they wanted. But I was fortunate, one of the gals did all the work herself to make sure she would get to stay there after she managed to get HUD involved.
We have a family down the street from us. The husband does work as a stock clerk for a large shoe store chain. I have no idea what he makes. The wife stays home to take care of three or more foster kids, all of them teens. Occasionally she may have a pre-teen on a temporary basis, and she also takes one out of Juvenal for only a month or two.
She told us we should consider taking an early teen ourselves, but not necessarily a juvie because they can be trouble.
But all of the early and mid teens she's taken care of were never a problem. Some are there for only a few months, because of a marital dispute by their parents, others have no parents or relatives and are with her for three or four years.
The pay range or taking them in is anywhere from around 300 to 800 per month, it actually goes down the older they get. Juvies pay 1000 to 1200 per month, but steal you blind, destroy stuff, or violate the foster care rules.
She has them doing almost all the work around the house, including helping to prepare meals. She or her husband takes care of all the laundry because they are not allowed downstairs in the basement for any reason. She's also not allowed to make a bedroom in the basement for them either, even with the proper fire exits, another foster care rule.
Over the course of a year, she averages about 2500 bucks a month tax free income, but has to provide tons of receipts for it too. But that has never been a problem, they expect teens to eat a lot, even if they don't, hi hi.
I have actually though about perhaps taking a single teen, but the frau said no, she's not giving up her office, hi hi.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
I had a friend around high school age back in the day. He had a sister who was retarded and a younger biological brother. We would babysit the girl once in a while. While she was quite lovable, she was also quite a handful to care for. I could not see living with her 24/7 because I simply would not have that much energy and patience to deal with that situation. That family took in a foster child, a boy around 12, and were not shy about why they did it. They wanted the excess cash the state provided to care for the child. Being greedy wasn't enough. They made certain that the boy in their care knew his place. He was cared for properly but never got the same things as did his pseudo siblings. Plus, he was told often that he was not their biological son and should not expect to be treated as one. In my young eyes he was a cool kid and I never knew of any trouble he caused or was involved with. He was fortunate in a way to have a nice home, but his foster parents didn't deserve to have him or the cash from the state. They certainly didn't spend it all on their foster child.
I'm going to rely on memory here, but I'm reasonably sure I am correct about this one. The suggested increase in social security benefits were tied to a series of bills that would also provide funds to build a wall across the southern border of Texas. One could not be had without the other. You might see this as extortion, but in reality it's just politics as usual in 2019. My guess is that the next federal budget will have cuts in social services but not to the extent that the current administration demands. Instead the national debt number will be increased and more credit will be needed via the sale of Treasure Bonds. This has worked well in the past, but times are different. People who have been buying our debt in previous years are becoming disenchanted with the dollar.
I'm going to rely on memory here, but I'm reasonably sure I am correct about this one. The suggested increase in social security benefits were tied to a series of bills that would also provide funds to build a wall across the southern border of Texas. One could not be had without the other. You might see this as extortion, but in reality it's just politics as usual in 2019. My guess is that the next federal budget will have cuts in social services but not to the extent that the current administration demands. Instead the national debt number will be increased and more credit will be needed via the sale of Treasure Bonds. This has worked well in the past, but times are different. People who have been buying our debt in previous years are becoming disenchanted with the dollar.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
From what I understand, our national debt is already well beyond the sustainable level and could come crashing down at any moment. It all seems to have started with the Federal Reserve System. Billions for the Bankers, and a way to run the country dry of funds.
I've met a few families with foster kids who were treated like dirt. Some of them turned worse because of it, and others did OK because they knew they would be out of that situation as soon as they were old enough.
One of my rental houses had three rooms in it, and although I only rented to one tenant, he took in two more himself, so each one had a room. They were never any trouble at all, but I later learned that all three had come out of the foster system. I did worry about the legality of them doing that, but this particular area had a lot of college kids all living in the same houses without problems. They took good care of the place and never bothered me to fix things they could fix themselves if it was easy that is. The few times I did have to go there for something, the place was clean and as neat as a pin, so no complaints about them at all. They always paid the rent early, and kept the lawn mowed and bushes trimmed. Not like several of my other home renters, hi hi.
I've met a few families with foster kids who were treated like dirt. Some of them turned worse because of it, and others did OK because they knew they would be out of that situation as soon as they were old enough.
One of my rental houses had three rooms in it, and although I only rented to one tenant, he took in two more himself, so each one had a room. They were never any trouble at all, but I later learned that all three had come out of the foster system. I did worry about the legality of them doing that, but this particular area had a lot of college kids all living in the same houses without problems. They took good care of the place and never bothered me to fix things they could fix themselves if it was easy that is. The few times I did have to go there for something, the place was clean and as neat as a pin, so no complaints about them at all. They always paid the rent early, and kept the lawn mowed and bushes trimmed. Not like several of my other home renters, hi hi.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
I think you have been fortunate with tenants because you have a lot of experience in business. Your intuition is sharp and well tuned when it comes to picking the good people out of the patch of weeds.
A sustainable national debt figure has been debated ever since there was a debt. It's usually based on GDP, but that's kind of a fictitious calculation. If we go bankrupt, we are not going to be selling any real estate or assets to pay our bills, but the GPD number gives everyone a good idea of how well prepared we are to cover our debts. Thus, part of that debt number is based on the good will other countries extend to us. Congress, both sides of the aisle, determines what the allowable maximum debt can be. The Federal Reserve System has nothing to do with it. It's the Treasury department that sells the bonds to pay the bills.
Here is something to think about. In June of 2019 the debt was a little over $22 trillion. Yes, that is the number a lot of folks felt was already too high. The tax cuts added 2 of that 22 trillion and we are in economic water that has never been sailed before with no end in sight for the debt's continued increase. Exactly what happens when a place like the USA can't pay it's bills? You don't want to know, but we might find out unfortunately.
A sustainable national debt figure has been debated ever since there was a debt. It's usually based on GDP, but that's kind of a fictitious calculation. If we go bankrupt, we are not going to be selling any real estate or assets to pay our bills, but the GPD number gives everyone a good idea of how well prepared we are to cover our debts. Thus, part of that debt number is based on the good will other countries extend to us. Congress, both sides of the aisle, determines what the allowable maximum debt can be. The Federal Reserve System has nothing to do with it. It's the Treasury department that sells the bonds to pay the bills.
Here is something to think about. In June of 2019 the debt was a little over $22 trillion. Yes, that is the number a lot of folks felt was already too high. The tax cuts added 2 of that 22 trillion and we are in economic water that has never been sailed before with no end in sight for the debt's continued increase. Exactly what happens when a place like the USA can't pay it's bills? You don't want to know, but we might find out unfortunately.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
Most of the houses I bought already had long term tenants in them who planned to stay.
I really didn't want to become a landlord, however, there was a logical reason for me to do so.
It actually has more to do with taxes, permits, and licenses, than anything else.
When you buy vacant houses for renovation, you must immediately apply for the permits and licenses for the work, Within 15 days of taking Possession of the property.
Even if you only want to hold them in inventory until you get around to them. Also, you still have to maintain the yards, and keep the exterior up to code, or board it up with their approved board-up rules and fees.
BUT, when you buy a house with a tenant already in place, and all the permits already up to date.
UNTIL that tenant moves out, you do not take Possession of the House for Renovation Purposed, the reason it was purchased. So, I don't need to pay for the permits and licenses until after I take Possession for the purpose intended.
The second benefit is it produces a small income stream rather than loss from sitting idle and costing in yard maintenance, etc.
This is the reason I jumped on that six-house deal! I would have inventory I didn't need licenses and permits to hold as inventory. I still had to pay the property taxes, and keep the occupancy permit fee paid, but that was it.
I think you would be in shock to find out just how much of or land is owned by the Chinese!
Great Britain is next in line, followed by Russia.
Now they don't own it in the same fashion as we own our property we build houses on, the government still technically owns the land, and we are merely secondary owners, but treated as sole owners.
Land purchased for Embassy's, although can only be sold back to the U.S., they own the land and the U.S. cannot step foot on it, because they really sold the land and all rights to it.
The government almost accidentally did the same thing when they sold land to Mosques.
Indian Reservations have always been owned by the U.S. so they can take them back if they want.
I learned about most of this way back in the '70's when I worked for Highways & Planning and later while working for MRTC, who had pipelines running through Chinese and British owned land.
If you look at U.S. land in a tier system. The federal government owns all the land from sea to shining sea.
Most homeowners DO NOT HAVE PATENT on the Land their house is built.
All we have is a WARRANTY DEED, and a Warranty Deed cannot stand against a Land Patent.
Although often termed as Color of Title, technically it is a meaningless piece of paper.
FWIW: A Land Patent is PERMANENT and cannot be changed or altered by the federal government once issued.
Real Estate is only bought and sold under Color of Title, something the banks love, hi hi.
Constitutionally, the only land the government really owns is Washington DC, but they control the entire US by Land Patent, and Grant Patent.
I may be wrong on this, but I think states are who got the Grant Patent for land within their borders, in order to enact state laws and become a governing body for all the land in their state.
Been many years since I worked with this type of information.
Nevertheless, when we were working on the pipelines and the easements they are on. Through many areas we had to get easements from Chinese or British authorities, the owners of those lands, many by Grant Patent.
Here's a good one for you. If you obtained a Land Patent for your property, which is probably impossible.
Suppose a bank wanted to foreclose on your house. All they could foreclose on is the house, NOT the land it is built on, unless that land was obtained by Warranty Deed, which is basically meaningless, you don't own the land unless you have Land Patent.
Also, you cannot dig below a certain depth or go up in the air over a certain height with only a Warranty Deed.
But if you held a Land Patent, then you could dig as deep as you want, or go as high as you want, except for FAA regulations which control the airspace.
Chances are, the builder of your subdivision obtained a Grant Patent, so they control the land. A Grant Patent is more restrictive above and below soil level than a Land Patent.
In closing: We don't usually own the land our houses sit on! Whoever owns the Land Patent, if any, is who technically owns it! If not, then you could get a Restricted Land Patent, aka Grant Patent.
And don't quote me on any of this, because it has been over 50 years and my memory was left behind somewhere in the '60's hi hi.
I really didn't want to become a landlord, however, there was a logical reason for me to do so.
It actually has more to do with taxes, permits, and licenses, than anything else.
When you buy vacant houses for renovation, you must immediately apply for the permits and licenses for the work, Within 15 days of taking Possession of the property.
Even if you only want to hold them in inventory until you get around to them. Also, you still have to maintain the yards, and keep the exterior up to code, or board it up with their approved board-up rules and fees.
BUT, when you buy a house with a tenant already in place, and all the permits already up to date.
UNTIL that tenant moves out, you do not take Possession of the House for Renovation Purposed, the reason it was purchased. So, I don't need to pay for the permits and licenses until after I take Possession for the purpose intended.
The second benefit is it produces a small income stream rather than loss from sitting idle and costing in yard maintenance, etc.
This is the reason I jumped on that six-house deal! I would have inventory I didn't need licenses and permits to hold as inventory. I still had to pay the property taxes, and keep the occupancy permit fee paid, but that was it.
I think you would be in shock to find out just how much of or land is owned by the Chinese!
Great Britain is next in line, followed by Russia.
Now they don't own it in the same fashion as we own our property we build houses on, the government still technically owns the land, and we are merely secondary owners, but treated as sole owners.
Land purchased for Embassy's, although can only be sold back to the U.S., they own the land and the U.S. cannot step foot on it, because they really sold the land and all rights to it.
The government almost accidentally did the same thing when they sold land to Mosques.
Indian Reservations have always been owned by the U.S. so they can take them back if they want.
I learned about most of this way back in the '70's when I worked for Highways & Planning and later while working for MRTC, who had pipelines running through Chinese and British owned land.
If you look at U.S. land in a tier system. The federal government owns all the land from sea to shining sea.
Most homeowners DO NOT HAVE PATENT on the Land their house is built.
All we have is a WARRANTY DEED, and a Warranty Deed cannot stand against a Land Patent.
Although often termed as Color of Title, technically it is a meaningless piece of paper.
FWIW: A Land Patent is PERMANENT and cannot be changed or altered by the federal government once issued.
Real Estate is only bought and sold under Color of Title, something the banks love, hi hi.
Constitutionally, the only land the government really owns is Washington DC, but they control the entire US by Land Patent, and Grant Patent.
I may be wrong on this, but I think states are who got the Grant Patent for land within their borders, in order to enact state laws and become a governing body for all the land in their state.
Been many years since I worked with this type of information.
Nevertheless, when we were working on the pipelines and the easements they are on. Through many areas we had to get easements from Chinese or British authorities, the owners of those lands, many by Grant Patent.
Here's a good one for you. If you obtained a Land Patent for your property, which is probably impossible.
Suppose a bank wanted to foreclose on your house. All they could foreclose on is the house, NOT the land it is built on, unless that land was obtained by Warranty Deed, which is basically meaningless, you don't own the land unless you have Land Patent.
Also, you cannot dig below a certain depth or go up in the air over a certain height with only a Warranty Deed.
But if you held a Land Patent, then you could dig as deep as you want, or go as high as you want, except for FAA regulations which control the airspace.
Chances are, the builder of your subdivision obtained a Grant Patent, so they control the land. A Grant Patent is more restrictive above and below soil level than a Land Patent.
In closing: We don't usually own the land our houses sit on! Whoever owns the Land Patent, if any, is who technically owns it! If not, then you could get a Restricted Land Patent, aka Grant Patent.
And don't quote me on any of this, because it has been over 50 years and my memory was left behind somewhere in the '60's hi hi.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
I promise not to quote you on any of that land ownership information because to me most of it is incomprehensible. LOL Besides, even if you are 100% correct in your descriptions, the laws probably have changed over the past 50 years. You may be right about the Chinese and Russians owning land in this country (outside their embassies), but I find it hard to believe that either one of those two countries would be able to come build on the land they own; you know, like a military base or something. At least that can't happen this year; it may be possible after the next election.
My comments were about how our government finances its operations. I can see how defaulting on our loans could be a legal reason for countries to lay claim to the real estate they own. Even if it were possible, that isn't what the enemy wants. A default on our debt would collapse financial markets around the world at least on a temporary basis. The most likely outcome would be a lowering of our bond rating and the inability of us to sell more in the open market. Thus it would be mandatory to cut expenses by eliminating services. More devastating would be the move away from the dollar as the world's standard currency for exchange purposes. It's already going in that direction but a complete exit by holders of the dollar would reduce our standing as a world power to that of a third world nation. We would survive, but we would not be in any position to influence events on a global basis. The collapse of the American economy due to a debt crisis would be one way for our adversaries to conquer us without launching a single nuclear weapon. That's why it's important to be concerned about what is happening with the national debt limit.
My comments were about how our government finances its operations. I can see how defaulting on our loans could be a legal reason for countries to lay claim to the real estate they own. Even if it were possible, that isn't what the enemy wants. A default on our debt would collapse financial markets around the world at least on a temporary basis. The most likely outcome would be a lowering of our bond rating and the inability of us to sell more in the open market. Thus it would be mandatory to cut expenses by eliminating services. More devastating would be the move away from the dollar as the world's standard currency for exchange purposes. It's already going in that direction but a complete exit by holders of the dollar would reduce our standing as a world power to that of a third world nation. We would survive, but we would not be in any position to influence events on a global basis. The collapse of the American economy due to a debt crisis would be one way for our adversaries to conquer us without launching a single nuclear weapon. That's why it's important to be concerned about what is happening with the national debt limit.
Re: [SPLIT] Software Updates
Under Obama, the national debt increased by a whopping 9.5 trillion dollars.
Under Trump, the national debt has increased by only 2 trillion dollars.
Quite a contrast don't you think?
Under Trump, the national debt has increased by only 2 trillion dollars.
Quite a contrast don't you think?