Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Polo chic
This cricket jacket is a perfect piece for a spring gathering. Pair it with white pants, and white sneakers for a dressed down, relaxed look. And for a more refined look, try pairing it with white pants and black loafers. No socks allowed
THE AMERICAN DREAM??
For years, the consensus by most economists , was that the fastest way to wealth is through the real estate market. From 1997 to 2005, the United States real estate market saw the biggest increase in home value's ever. Many people capitalized on the robust market and made well on the "flip"(the practice in which properties were purchased for cheap, rehabbed, and re-sold for exponential profits). Equities sometimes soared into stratospheres that easily exceeded $100,000. Everyone benefited from the bubble, especially the lenders.
But all good things must come to an end... Right?
Now I can talk endlessly about what and whom contributed to the demise of the real estate market(which began its descent circa 2005). The point is, the market is in such a quagmire that many economists are now saying that renting in some places is better than owning.
Not so! Home ownership is the gateway to the American dream. Right?
Maybe, just maybe, we should examine just why the allure to home ownership is not what it's been in years past.
The principals behind home ownership have shifted and the ideals of wealth have been misconstrued. When my grandparents purchased their home in 1971, their idea was to pay the mortgage and have the deed to that home. They wanted to OWN the home. This was the motivation of many older Americans who took out mortgages; albeit 15, 20, or 30yrs, their intentions was to possess the deed to the property that they so tirelessly paid for so long.
Fast forward to the housing bubble and most homeowners (not all) never foresee truly owning the property. Many of those who benefited from the bubble, had success flipping properties and either purchased other properties, or upgraded to bigger properties. And in the era of inflated home values, some made out like bandits. Real estate was seemingly fool proof. Lenders began creating exotic loans to put families who would not qualify ordinarily, into these homes, because even they (the banks) counted on the quick sale if the family could not sustain payment.
Fast forward even further, and we are in the worst economic tailspin since the great depression. Jobs are being lost and foreclosure rates are staggering. One of the main reasons why the foreclosure rate has sky rocketed is because many people forgot one of the tenets to wealth. A home is not an asset until you sell the property and profit. Home equity is meaningless if you can't sell the property. Home equity lines of CREDIT and Home equity LOANS are great for short term , but have to be paid back. A loan and credit are two things that contribute to debt, not wealth.
And shall we mention re-adjusted home values?! Many people's homes have actually lost value and some of those people have worthless loans because their balances exceed the worth of the home. So now, if you cannot sell the property, then your stuck paying for a house that is for all accounts worthless. Now what makes that any different than renting? Tax benefits? maybe...
What about increased property taxes in some places? No one wants to mention the elderly people whom for years possess the deeds to their homes, who are retired, and can't afford the property tax, and subsequently lose their homes. That begs the question, do you ever really own the home you pay for? We all know what happens when one neglects their mortgage. But one pays taxes forever. And some people, like my grandmother, have tax bills that exceed their mortgage. It sounds more like a money pit than a money maker. Try not paying your taxes and you will be in the same capsized boat as those who don't pay their mortgage.
Now of course, this is just me playing devils advocate. I truly believe, the housing market like everything else, will bounce back to viability. But I think, given what occurred with the bubble bursting, buying a home will go back to becoming a strategic, carefully planned process like it once was. I think the loan process will be revamped so that those and only those who truly qualify will get mortgages. I just think we all need to examine this issue from every angle. Sometimes it's fun to be the pessimist. This is food thought, you do the dishes.
But all good things must come to an end... Right?
Now I can talk endlessly about what and whom contributed to the demise of the real estate market(which began its descent circa 2005). The point is, the market is in such a quagmire that many economists are now saying that renting in some places is better than owning.
Not so! Home ownership is the gateway to the American dream. Right?
Maybe, just maybe, we should examine just why the allure to home ownership is not what it's been in years past.
The principals behind home ownership have shifted and the ideals of wealth have been misconstrued. When my grandparents purchased their home in 1971, their idea was to pay the mortgage and have the deed to that home. They wanted to OWN the home. This was the motivation of many older Americans who took out mortgages; albeit 15, 20, or 30yrs, their intentions was to possess the deed to the property that they so tirelessly paid for so long.
Fast forward to the housing bubble and most homeowners (not all) never foresee truly owning the property. Many of those who benefited from the bubble, had success flipping properties and either purchased other properties, or upgraded to bigger properties. And in the era of inflated home values, some made out like bandits. Real estate was seemingly fool proof. Lenders began creating exotic loans to put families who would not qualify ordinarily, into these homes, because even they (the banks) counted on the quick sale if the family could not sustain payment.
Fast forward even further, and we are in the worst economic tailspin since the great depression. Jobs are being lost and foreclosure rates are staggering. One of the main reasons why the foreclosure rate has sky rocketed is because many people forgot one of the tenets to wealth. A home is not an asset until you sell the property and profit. Home equity is meaningless if you can't sell the property. Home equity lines of CREDIT and Home equity LOANS are great for short term , but have to be paid back. A loan and credit are two things that contribute to debt, not wealth.
And shall we mention re-adjusted home values?! Many people's homes have actually lost value and some of those people have worthless loans because their balances exceed the worth of the home. So now, if you cannot sell the property, then your stuck paying for a house that is for all accounts worthless. Now what makes that any different than renting? Tax benefits? maybe...
What about increased property taxes in some places? No one wants to mention the elderly people whom for years possess the deeds to their homes, who are retired, and can't afford the property tax, and subsequently lose their homes. That begs the question, do you ever really own the home you pay for? We all know what happens when one neglects their mortgage. But one pays taxes forever. And some people, like my grandmother, have tax bills that exceed their mortgage. It sounds more like a money pit than a money maker. Try not paying your taxes and you will be in the same capsized boat as those who don't pay their mortgage.
Now of course, this is just me playing devils advocate. I truly believe, the housing market like everything else, will bounce back to viability. But I think, given what occurred with the bubble bursting, buying a home will go back to becoming a strategic, carefully planned process like it once was. I think the loan process will be revamped so that those and only those who truly qualify will get mortgages. I just think we all need to examine this issue from every angle. Sometimes it's fun to be the pessimist. This is food thought, you do the dishes.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
CLASSIC : SHOW ME WHAT YOU GOT VIDEO
This is one of my favorite Jay-z videos from his underrated "Kingdom Come" Album. I thought it gave the blog a good feel
Thursday, March 5, 2009
BACKSEAT LIAISONS
Denzel Smith (not his real name) is a professional beat writer and a full time parent. By day, he dedicates quality time to his profession and to his child. By night, when Mr Smith is off the payroll and his son is fast asleep (and a babysitter is on task), he is a man about town. On this particular night, he is meeting Kate Paltrow(not her real name) for drinks at a local martini bar. This was Denzel and Kate's second meeting in as many nights. Their first date occurred over dinner at Kate's favorite chain restaurant. The night was filled with humor and seemed more like a q & a session as the two learned the unknown intricacies of each other. Night 2 however, had a different feel from the start. The two had become more comfortable with each other after their first meeting, so the kinks were out, so to say. The setting was more intimate and more sexy. The two sat in a corner booth which allowed them to sit right next to each other; so close that Kate could smell the hint of cologne that Denzel splashed on his neck. The two ate appetizers, humorously conversed and drank martini's. As the night progressed, their humorous conversation took a turn(for the better) as their arms interlocked and Denzel reached over and kissed Kate.
Kate, a bit surprised, but turned on, reached back over and kissed Denzel. The small act of intimacy continued for a while. Before long, the martini's kicked in and so did the testosterone and estrogen. And almost in sync, Denzel and Kate uttered... Check please!
The two walked back to Denzels car, where he politely opened Kate's door. Denzel then let himself in on the driver side. He starts the car. But before he could put the car in reverse, Kate reached over and began to aggressively kiss his neck; and he began to fondle her; he instructed her to move to the back seat and remove her clothes, and in what seemed liked an instance, an intense sexual encounter took place! A backseat liaison of sorts.
The intrigue to these types of intimate encounters are not the encounters themselves. I'm sure many of us can recall our days of yesteryear, when the backseat doubled as a hotel. And then, upon maturation, you realize the apparent sleaze of your actions...Fast forward some years, and we find ourselves revisiting the backseat; This time, minus the sleaze. For, the intrigue to the backseat, is the sexual spontaneity of the experience. Yes, Denzel and Kate could have opted for a hotel room or his or her own bedroom. But the lusty moment called for immediate action. That immediate action and willingness to concede to impulse, resulted in an explosive, orgasmic, episode.
So where do you stand on backseat liaisons? Many people are for spontaneity and impulse. Many have developed, what I call, the "class shield". They become so closed minded to such encounters and dismiss them as childish, classless and sleazy. They feel they undermine adulthood and it demeans them... I think it's sexy based on a given situation. Denzel and Kate were only on their second date. That presents risk. But if you're in that same situation with your lady friend or guy friend of 5yrs, is it so risky? If Denzel was with, lets say, his wife, would that change perception? Think about the movie UNFAITHFUL. There's a scene where Dianne Lane is eating lunch with her friends at a restaurant and her young fling comes in and signals her to the bathroom; she followed him in there and had a pretty interesting tryst, that we all thought was, well... interesting (to say the least). Now I know she was cheating, but think about if that was Richard Gere (her husband in the movie). Would the perception of the tryst change? Ladies and gentlemen, have we grown so far in maturity that we are above a little sexy fun? Or ladies and gentlemen are we still willing to be a little provocative and spontaneous while outside four walls and a queen size bed? This is food for thought, you do the dishes.
Kate, a bit surprised, but turned on, reached back over and kissed Denzel. The small act of intimacy continued for a while. Before long, the martini's kicked in and so did the testosterone and estrogen. And almost in sync, Denzel and Kate uttered... Check please!
The two walked back to Denzels car, where he politely opened Kate's door. Denzel then let himself in on the driver side. He starts the car. But before he could put the car in reverse, Kate reached over and began to aggressively kiss his neck; and he began to fondle her; he instructed her to move to the back seat and remove her clothes, and in what seemed liked an instance, an intense sexual encounter took place! A backseat liaison of sorts.
The intrigue to these types of intimate encounters are not the encounters themselves. I'm sure many of us can recall our days of yesteryear, when the backseat doubled as a hotel. And then, upon maturation, you realize the apparent sleaze of your actions...Fast forward some years, and we find ourselves revisiting the backseat; This time, minus the sleaze. For, the intrigue to the backseat, is the sexual spontaneity of the experience. Yes, Denzel and Kate could have opted for a hotel room or his or her own bedroom. But the lusty moment called for immediate action. That immediate action and willingness to concede to impulse, resulted in an explosive, orgasmic, episode.
So where do you stand on backseat liaisons? Many people are for spontaneity and impulse. Many have developed, what I call, the "class shield". They become so closed minded to such encounters and dismiss them as childish, classless and sleazy. They feel they undermine adulthood and it demeans them... I think it's sexy based on a given situation. Denzel and Kate were only on their second date. That presents risk. But if you're in that same situation with your lady friend or guy friend of 5yrs, is it so risky? If Denzel was with, lets say, his wife, would that change perception? Think about the movie UNFAITHFUL. There's a scene where Dianne Lane is eating lunch with her friends at a restaurant and her young fling comes in and signals her to the bathroom; she followed him in there and had a pretty interesting tryst, that we all thought was, well... interesting (to say the least). Now I know she was cheating, but think about if that was Richard Gere (her husband in the movie). Would the perception of the tryst change? Ladies and gentlemen, have we grown so far in maturity that we are above a little sexy fun? Or ladies and gentlemen are we still willing to be a little provocative and spontaneous while outside four walls and a queen size bed? This is food for thought, you do the dishes.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
