buy or lease Honda

I've taken to leasing the last umpty years.

Check out the prices!

Assuming you drive average miles, you end up paying a small premium for having almost zero maintenance issues, and the most up to date styling.

But let the prices help you decide.

J.

I think the consensus among financial adviser types is that owning is most always cheaper than leasing, no matter your age.

Personally I hate paying for my landline but I prefer DSL over cable. I could live without the landline very well otherwise. DSL is/has been 99% reliable and when we had cable (internet), I'd say 75% reliable. And when cable didn't work they always wanted to replace the cable and dig up the 100' of cable buried in our lawn. After 2 or

It depends on what one prefers. I pay the cost of TV and cell service because I want them and can afford it, as I own a house with no mortgage and no credit card bills to speak of. So if I chose to spend $$$$ on these services, so be it.

One can also say there is no real need for broadband internet service, yet there are very few that would want to do without it that currently have it. It's a want, not a need.

yes, but that still doesn't mean it's not crazy.

Paying for broadband internet service can be construed as crazy...the same can be said for many things. It all boils down to individual wants.

Nah, you just have different needs.

Mainly for people who really can't afford it, I think. Unfortunately I run into many people with expensive phone, TV and broadband plans who live from paycheck to paycheck and maxed out credit cards and then they blame others for their financial problems. Typical Dem voters.

"cameo" wrote

There are idiots in every political persuasion, my boy.... No need to take a shot at one group.

Sure, just not in the same proportion.

Oh, sorry if you feel hit by it. I take it you are not a typical Dem voter then.

"cameo" wrote

Too funny. Sad, typical, and funny.

That is correct. Neither side is willing to look at and acknowledge what's good and right about the other. Today's polarization serves no one.

polarization definitely serves some:

Those guys writing to that web sites would not know what objectivity is if it hit them between the eyes. Just look up the wiki on their board of directors. A bunch of leftist academics.

It certainly is not objective.

Quite frankly, I'll support the guy who has executive experience over the community organizer any day...

JT

the author of that piece is a guy called mike lofgren. to quote the editor's note at the end of the article which you evidently never read:

"Mike Lofgren retired on June 17 after 28 years as a Congressional staffer. He served 16 years as a professional staff member on the Republican side of both the House and Senate Budget Committees."

hardly a "leftist academic".

Sorry, Jim, I am not impressed by congressional staffers changing colors when some better opportunity comes along. Or maybe when their huge egos feel underappreciated. Just the fact that this guy went straight to one of the leftist orgs ("truth out", I just love such self-serving names!) shows how firm his prior convictions must have been. Suddenly, the little known GOP staffer became the darling of the liberal media. Might even be a tell-all book in the works from him. But I leave it at that. We are way off topic here.

Sounds right but the problem is that that organizer now has Presidential experience.

And not really right, because the purpose of the government is not to make a profit for the stockholders, but to plan long-term for the citzens and state. Immediate profit should not be the consideration. And how do we count the shareholders? One share per property-owning white males as was the original intent? Maybe rich folks get many shares now?

If the "No taxation without representation" cry was good enough then the reverse should also hold today if we are to save the Republic from financial ruin: "No representation without taxation."