Posts by wiredotter12

Gerald Palmer66 said:You can actually withdraw without a fee at HypoVereinsbank (JPMorgan Chase) ATMs; you should check online to see how many of them are around, though I have a feeling they aren't incredibly common.😁

Honestly, the smartest move is to just pay for everything using your Mastercard and carry whatever cash you need from the US; that really seems like your best bet.

Otherwise, you're looking at a withdrawal fee of about 3.5%, with a minimum charge of $3.50.

OK, thanks.

I have a question regarding a scenario where I didn't bring enough cash from the US to Germany. If I need extra funds to spend exclusively in cash while in Germany, what is the most cost-effective way to handle this? I have a Chase Mastercard and a Chase Visa card.

1) If I use an ATM at a local German bank to withdraw cash (USD), what is the maximum amount I can pull out per transaction?
3) Which specific banks in Germany offer free or low-fee ATM withdrawals? My main goal is to avoid getting hit with unnecessary, high commissions from certain banks.

Thanks.

Patrick Martin10 said:I guess if someone actually wants to buy something in the US, they’d just use American listing sites... I think some of them are multilingual. I stumbled upon one recently, can't remember the name, but I think it was specifically for real estate... when you list something, you can pretty much write the description in a bunch of different languages...

Maybe this might help:
http://www.europeanproperty.com/sales/us/

Thanks, but it isn't free. 😛

Hi, I've been searching Google, but I can't find a decent free classifieds site within the EU or Switzerland for selling property and land located in the US. Does anyone know of a reliable website?
Thnx

Joshua Myers432 said:Exactly. Everyone is in debt. Me and my neighbor. Only difference is I have a small overdraft $6.75 which puts me "only" $2333 in the red. My neighbor is doing even better than me—nearly twice as good—he's "only" $1167 in the hole. His credit limit is about $1000 😁 That’s probably why he’s digging through dumpsters every morning. 😁

They're going to be absolutely thrilled with your grasp of economics, genius. 👍
What kind of dark fantasy is this "paying off debt" nonsense? Even in sci-fi movies, America couldn't function without taking on more debt, let alone paying it all back. 🙏

Are you a Republican youth organizer or just a freshman economics major? What are you, a kid?

Sorry man, I'm not interested in bickering. I use this forum for information and actual arguments.

For your benefit --> INFLATION PICKPOCKET

Joshua Myers432 said:I honestly think this country is beyond saving at this point. We can't even cover the interest on our debt, let alone touch the principal. 😁
We need to implement some brutal, radical austerity measures and then just sit tight for 10 to 15 years to see if they actually work. But which administration or party is actually going to step up? No one. They’ll just keep things exactly as they are and pile on more debt just to coast through the next election. Their only real priority is grabbing power and clinging to it for dear life. 😉

The Republican Party will likely lose the next election by a landslide, but don't hold your breath—nothing significant is actually going to change. Maybe we'll see some cosmetic tweaks, but there is zero chance the Democratic Party is ready to make any real cuts. They proved that back in 2000. Aside from diving headfirst into new debt and systemic looting, I haven't seen anything truly radical from them. In fact, they were so pathetic they wouldn't even touch the privatization scandals or throw anyone in jail. Of course they won't; there's an unspoken agreement in play here: You loot for four years, then We loot for four years, then it's back to You. Nobody goes to prison. 🙂

The USA, the EU, and most other nations are drowning in debt too... why should everyone go bankrupt, including America? Who actually benefits from that?
Wouldn't it be simpler to just use inflation—devaluing the currency—to wipe out the debt and move on? Similarly, America could implement some modest cuts, join the EU, and let a weaker Euro make paying off those debts much easier.
Why don't we do that?

Maria Thomas48 said:I was watching the session at the Capitol today, and it wasn't until the very end that Ljubo Jurčić brought up the possibility of using money issuance, arguing that it really ought to be backed by actual goods and services being produced. He touched on that whole issue of uncontrolled money printing, something people remember from the days of the Mexican Revolution.

It’s a shame he didn't point out that this might actually be our only realistic way out of this debt crisis, especially considering he was speaking to a half-empty room in Congress.

Since we're talking about the national budget, I have this perfect example of a balanced budget that shows some pretty interesting consequences:

"Imagine a country functions like a service provider—think of road workers, farmers, and millers. The road worker is in public service. Every year, he earns 99 gold coins for his work. From that, he pays the farmer 66 gold coins for food. Then, the farmer takes those 66 gold coins and pays the miller 33 gold coins, plus maybe some food through bartering. Now, for the government to get its budget back up to 99 gold coins, it charges each of them 33 gold coins in taxes. In the end, the state again has 99 gold coins to fund public services.

Why is this example worth looking at? Well, the GDP here is 99+66+33=198 gold coins. The state budget is 99 gold coins, which is exactly 50% of the GDP. It looks a lot like our current situation. But let's look at what happened to the wallets of the road worker, the farmer, and the miller. At the end of the day, they all ended up with a profit of 33 gold coins, which the government had to take away via a 100% income tax just to fill its own coffers. Nobody actually managed to make any money. Basically, they all worked the entire year for nothing, and their only real earnings were in goods through barter, not cash. If any one of them had actually tried to save anything, the others would have definitely ended up in debt to pay their taxes.

That was an example of a balanced budget. This scenario shows that in such a case, the total sum of monetary earnings for the citizens equals zero. That’s also the scenario where no single citizen falls into monetary debt. Of course, that assumes a 100% tax on profits.

And here is the important part. Only if the state were to mint some new gold coins and collect much less in taxes would the total earnings within the community actually turn positive. So, how does that sit with American law regarding the Federal Reserve? The rule says there is no minting of money (except for special circumstances), yet new money is being issued just to service even larger debts. Looking at the example, it's clear there isn't enough money to pay off interest on the debt because the money supply isn't expanding. Only the Federal Reserve can issue dollars, but they can legally claim more dollars in credit than they actually issued. If anyone actually looked closely at whether those dollars exist, it would be immediately obvious that the whole thing doesn't hold water. "

Best,

Maria Thomas48, first off... I respect the sheer amount of time and effort you put into deconstructing the mechanics of the financial system and the nature of money itself.

Your point about issuing currency backed by future production and services caught my attention. Since we are currently drowning in a massive mess here in America, and this could potentially be an escape route... can you elaborate? What does that look like specifically for the US?
The issue is that Beethoven might prefer adjusting interest rates instead, which would likely collapse the American financial system and trap us in permanent debt slavery, despite his earlier comments about the other option...
http://www.business.com/news/...will-happen
http://seebiz.com/macroeconomics/h...oru,97867.html
http://seebiz.com/macroeconomics/h...fi!,97858.html

Thanks. Regards.

Steven Reed said:Quincy:

wiredotter12 As stated by: Thanks for the response... Sure, every mortgage is tied to a specific loan—that’s the rule—but isn't there a massive flaw in how banks prioritize collections when mortgages are spread across multiple pieces of land? If a guy can't do much with property that's already encumbered by various liens, wouldn't it make more sense to consolidate everything into one single mortgage against the most valuable asset? That way, you could actually move freely with the cleared properties and focus all your resources on settling the debt on that one primary piece of real estate—right? So, to wrap this all up: The current setup is practically useless—it leaves everyone stuck, and frankly, the big banks aren't seeing a dime from it either. If you consolidate those mortgages—it’s like cleaning up a cluttered garage to actually find what you need—you gain much better control over your liquid real estate assets; plus, the banks will likely walk away with a little something for their trouble. The cost for the transfer—everything from the request to processing and final notarization—would run about a few thousand bucks. A friend of mine doesn't have a fifth piece of real estate to leverage for a new mortgage—the kind he'd need to clear those four existing debts—which would effectively free up all that land. So, yeah—that entire plan is dead in the water.

Hmm. 🤔
A few things here escape me:
How exactly do you think banks walk away empty-handed? Every single loan is backed by real estate as collateral—if a borrower defaults, the bank simply moves in and collects. It’s not rocket science. 🤷
Why on earth would anyone need to combine mortgages just to deal with their properties? — Who is stopping him from selling right now? Of course, there’s the tiny little catch—that any proceeds from the sale have to go directly toward paying off the loan secured by that land. Simple enough, isn't it? 🤷It looks to me like someone is trying to dump every single loan onto one piece of property—effectively using the cash from other sales to cover their tracks while leaving the debts unpaid. There isn't a theoretical chance that any halfway competent bank in the US would ever agree to such a ridiculous scheme.
One could always approach a single lender to request a refinancing of loans held elsewhere—using the property itself as sufficient collateral, of course. The idea is simple: Bank A pays off Banks B and C, leaving you with just one mortgage to juggle. However, speaking from my own experience—and let's be honest here—banks aren't exactly throwing a parade over the prospect of taking over someone else's loans right now.

1) True, but when everyone is underwater—both the borrowers and the banks—loans don't get paid immediately. They get pushed back until "conditions improve" or some refinancing scheme is found.
2) I admit that part is a bit fuzzy too... but it seems the issue is selling the fourth property while it's still encumbered. The intention is to repay the loans, but the challenge is figuring out a way to clear all those mortgages and debts quickly and profitably. That's the bottleneck.
3. Yes, but right now, that option seems like the best move for both my friend and the banks.

Nicholas Turner said:And what would you even call a loan if its sole purpose was to pay off other mortgages? It definitely wouldn't be classified as a home loan—that just doesn't fit!

Fair point. But the goal remains the same: a consolidated mortgage on the property. Look at this scenario: a friend has a primary residence worth $200k with a $25k mortgage, plus three other properties totaling $360k ($120k each) with $30k mortgages on each.
Using that primary residence—worth $200k with only $25k owed—he takes out a $90k loan. The bank increases the mortgage from $25k to $115k. He uses that cash to wipe out the other loans, which were sitting at a variable 12% interest rate. You're right about the math. 😍

It would be smarter to set up some kind of bridge financing with a 5% fixed rate and a 30% down payment—say, $30k—to secure an apartment loan. Use that payout to close all existing mortgages. That way, he gets the best possible rate and clears his debt entirely. The only problem is finding a lender willing to offer that specific structure. 😛

Nicholas Turner said:We don't necessarily need to bring a fourth bank into this narrative—it could easily be one of those three instead. That’s definitely an option, but we’d be looking at a non-purpose mortgage loan, which carries a much higher X.

It's obvious the lender is one of those three banks. I fail to see why you'd call it a non-purpose mortgage when the loan is secured by the most valuable property in the entire mortgage pool.

Nicholas Turner said:A major bank wouldn't even consider sharing a mortgage with another lender—not in their wildest dreams! Forget about it. It’s even more absurd to think three different banks would pile onto a single property—because if they ever have to foreclose, there's a strict priority line, and no bank wants to be second—let alone third—in that queue.

Fine, if that's the case—what's your solution?
Are you suggesting we just have one single bank hold one massive mortgage that covers three separate properties previously tied to three different lenders?

darkmaker94 said:As far as I know, you can't really "consolidate" mortgages into one, especially since they're spread across different banks. Even if they were all at the same place, it's unlikely because each mortgage is tied to its own specific loan agreement.
Since you mentioned the mortgage amounts are lower than what the land is actually worth, you could try moving those three mortgages over to the most valuable plot. But that requires getting the banks on board, and honestly, I doubt they'll bite. They’d rather have each mortgage secured by its own specific piece of land rather than having all four tied to one spot—it's just safer for them. Plus, you've got notary fees and all that legal stuff to deal with, so I'm not sure if it's even worth the hassle.

Your best bet might be finding another property or some land with enough equity to take out a brand-new mortgage. You could use that cash to pay off all four existing ones, which would leave those four plots totally clear.

Thanks for the input...

It's true that each mortgage is linked to a specific loan, but isn't it wrong to assume banks would prefer the current setup? If the mortgages stay tied to different plots, my friend is stuck; he can't do much with encumbered land. If he consolidates everything onto one mortgage against the most valuable property, he gains freedom to use the other properties and can more easily settle the remaining debt on that single primary asset. Isn't that the logic?

So, to summarize:
1) As things stand, he's restricted and the banks gain nothing.
2) If he consolidates, he gets more flexibility with his free assets, and the banks likely come out ahead too.
The cost for the transfer (applications, processing, notarization) would be a few hundred bucks.
3) He doesn't have a fifth property to leverage for a new loan to wipe out the first four, so that option is off the table.

A friend of mine is stuck. He owns four small parcels of land, all heavily mortgaged through three different banks. The liens range from 15% to 30% of the property value. He’s paralyzed because any potential buyers offering an exit strategy are just pushing bad deals—trading one mortgaged lot for several apartments in questionable locations without liens. To me, that’s just trading one headache for three and a half others.

Right now, the banks aren't happy with the situation, but they aren't squeezing him too hard because they want their money back. It feels like they'd do just about anything to untangle this mess and get paid.

I actually think it would benefit the banks (all three of them) to consolidate these four mortgages into a single lien on one primary property. That way, my friend clears the debt on three lots and gains the flexibility to sell or trade them, leaving just one mortgage on one piece of land. It makes the bank's path to recovery much cleaner. Wouldn't you agree?😉

Does anyone have actual insight or a concrete suggestion on how he can thread the needle here?🤷 Is there a specific bank in the US right now that is more open to restructuring or consolidating liens to resolve these kinds of deadlocks?🤷
Feel free to DM me.🙏

...is anyone actually here?

Does anyone know the exact penicillin dosage required for an adult male (33 years old, 180 lbs)? I’ve tested positive for Group B strep in my urethra, urine, and semen.
My wife took ten doses of 2,000,000 units. However, her primary care physician told her my dose should be ten doses of 1,600,000 units, despite me being 20kg heavier than her.😠
I want to kill this infection, not waste time on an ineffective dose.
What’s the move? Where can I find the specific clinical guidelines for penicillin dosing per kilogram of body weight?
🙏🙏🙏

Benjamin Rodriguez2 said:Direct answer to you and wiredotter12

- total contract amount was about $30,000
- my own cash after saving for 2 years was roughly $10,000
- after those two years, I got my savings back plus the loan payout
- loan was around $20,000, fixed at a 3% interest rate, monthly payments were about $180 over a 12-year term

I mean, sure, it’s peanuts in the grand scheme of things, but that $30,000 was exactly what I needed to pay off my old mortgage and finally breathe easy. With this kind of setup, you can't just pull out the cash whenever you feel like it; you have to spend the whole damn pile on specific stuff, like buying a house, fixing it up, or clearing old debt. You can always pay the loan back faster than 12 years if you want, but honestly, why would I rush when I'm paying such a pathetic, rock-solid fixed rate?

The thing that really screwed most people over with those traditional savings plans is that you usually have to save for years before you even see a dime in credit, whereas a regular bank will just hand you a loan right now. That’s why these places started offering all these "bridge financing" or "pre-financing" schemes where you get the money upfront, and then your monthly payments cover both the savings contribution and the loan repayment all at once—it’s a whole mess of fine print, and I won't bore you with the technicalities. I didn't even use that option myself, though I guess the ladies working the counters at the local branch could probably walk you through the specifics better than I can.

Fine, sounds like a solid plan. 👍

Benjamin Rodriguez2 said:And here comes the genius 😁 I actually took out a LOAN at a fixed 3% rate and that's what I'm paying back. This whole bridge financing thing is totally irrelevant.

http://www.wellsfargo.com/savings

Hmm... correct me if I'm wrong 😛
You keep depositing into savings and then expect to roll that loan over at 3% once the term ends? That won't happen. You'll end up signing a new contract at whatever the current market rate is. That 3% was just a promotional teaser to get people to park their cash. Once the promo period hits, you're stuck with the prevailing rates ☕

Unless your savings term already expired and you actually locked in that 3% loan, in which case, I'm talking nonsense and you're winning. 😂

I need some advice...
I have a court date coming up regarding a collision involving a violation of the Highway Traffic Safety Act. I was driving in the left lane and failed to maintain a safe following distance, causing my front end to hit the rear of a Jeep. During the incident, the driver in the Jeep slammed on the brakes without using their hazard lights; honestly, it looked like they just shut the engine off. No one was hurt since I was only going about 19 miles mph and braked hard. My car took a decent hit to the spare tire area, while their Jeep didn't have a scratch on it.

Is there any way I can argue that the female driver failed to signal her sudden deceleration with hazards? 😕
The law states the following:
17. FOLLOWING DISTANCE
Section 109.
(1) A driver is required to maintain a safe following distance when traveling behind another vehicle to ensure traffic safety is not compromised.
(2) A fine of $167 will be imposed on any driver who fails to maintain the necessary following distance.
🙏

Thanks for the help everyone...
I cleared things up using Malwarebytes and Spybot. Now I just have to deal with McAfee, which is currently disabled 😠

I keep getting hit with pop-ups like this...
"NOTICE: If your computer has errors in the registry database or file system, it could cause unpredictable or erratic behavior, freezes or crashes."

Fixing these errors can increase your computer's performance and prevent data loss.

Would you like to install ErrorSafe to check your computer for free? (recommended)"
Help, anyone know what this is? 🙏 🙏 🙏