Actually, I don't think Greenspan is the villain in this. I repeat - the Fed has very little control over the securitization of bundled mortgage loans. They are repackaged into equity deals and are collateralized by the RE. Yes, in some areas of the US that RE has fallen in value. But in most areas of the US it has not dropped drastically, and even a 25% decline eventually works itself out through the system. The US simply has too large and global an economy for it to be more than a big burp in the overall history. I do fault Greenspan for keeping rates low too long, but hindsight is always so much better than foresight. Why should he be any different than us folks at the forum - where are all those posters here who declared one could never lose money in RE? And the hysteria over banks is amusing. There is NO CASH CRUNCH. Banks are flush with money, as are most companies. There is a liquidity crunch, which is a thing entirely different. Wells Fargo had very little exposure to subprime loans; they securitize and sell most of their loans to other servicers. WaMu recently added to their loan loss reserve but their core business, checking and savings, is booming like gangbusters and they will have no trouble opening all the new branches they plan to start in 2007-2008. Actually, if I were investing in individual stocks, which I don't, I'd buy Goldman Sachs in a heartbeat. The liquidity messiness has really depressed its stock price and they are the premier deal-broker in the world. Now, when they start jumping out of their windows, then I'll worry! As for RE agents fleeing the field, most of those were part-time and newcomers anyway. It's always been a boom-and-bust business, and probably always will be. We saw the same thing happen in the 1990's. People have such short memories! The vast majority of Americans have pretty much the same amount in their checking and savings accounts as they had two months ago. The vast majority of American, Asian and European corporations can say the same. The only thing changed are people's perceptions, as fed by the media.

I am 3 mos from medicare and currently looking for the right supplemental insurance. As a single person, my current insurance is 780 per mo with a 2000 deductable. They doubled my premium the minute I turned 64. Tried to find another insurance but simple issues like a prescription used once, allows them to deny me. The only insurance I could find which would cover me had a 20,000 deductable and wouldn't cover existing condition for 6 mos....340 a month. And, my current insurance would not let me change my policy to lower monthly costs. Different states have different laws and has nothing to do with the same insurance company. If I had lived in FL the change was available, my state doesn't support this. With all, I stayed and paid...figured it was an additional 4,000 this year to keep my sanity after all the hours of searching for insurance that didn't want me. Had never gone to the doctor except for a yearly physical....this year I am staying completely away from them to eliminate the 2,000 deductable. I am greatful that I can eek by for a few more months with the increase, but it irks me everytime I write the check. I do have a medical problem, but it doesn't require care and only take a cheap medication. I was healthy as a horse until a year ago, but cannot feel comfortable without health insurance knowing how quickly our health can change. Without insurance they could take everything beyond my home and car...but then how would I pay for them, upkeep, etc. without my small cushion beyond social security income. And if you can't keep them, you sell and have money and they can take that. Am in the middle, have enough to live comfortably, not an extreme lifestyle, and figure I can live another 15 years this way...if health stays in line and hopefully medicare years will ease the burden of high insurance payments. My savings cushion however eliminates any outside help/benefits....you either have to be destitute or a millionaire to survive. Middle pays the way. At a time when retirement should be the best of our years, it evolves into spending the least you can and putting up with the "big guys" taking as much as they can. I sincerely worry about my children and what they will be looking at in the future to care for themselves. How much more all of this will cost and how long will they have to work to pay for all. Maybe I should have put this ramble under another thread. But the question about how much for health care really wasn't answered due to what is such a broad environment that we as retirees live in.

We bought LTCI last year at the ages of 49 and 51, and we're glad we did. I did not go into this with eyes half shut. I did uncountable hours of research, attended seminars, talked to people, interviewed agents, etc. I'm the type of person who doesn't allow anyone to talk me into anything - period. We bought a great policy through an A++ rated company, John Hancock. The average age one should buy LTC is 60ish - before health problems begin and the premiums are outrageous if you can even get it with certain conditions. I wasn't waiting 10 years to do so especially since our premiums would double by then even if we remain healthy...but who knows how our health will be in 10 years. Sure, we're healthy now and healthier than our parents were at this age, but no one has a crystal ball to determine how our health and at what age, will affect us. I'm not taking chances knowing DH's parents history. We have no kids or family that will care for us should we need it now or later, and to put 100% burden on the other spouse isn't fair, IMO. And even if we did have kids, who's to say they would want to interrupt their lives to care for sick parents. As cruel as this sounds, I prefer not to care for my mother as she's a difficult one now and she's relatively healthy. This LTC is piece of mind for us. While humans are living longer these days, from my research, it states that a very high percentage of people will require some kind of nursing home facility and the average time is 2.5 years. Should that time come now or later, the insurance is already there to be used. If we were to invest $$ for a rainy day to use toward this, it will take A VERY LONG TIME to match what insurance money is available to us NOW. We hope to never have to use it, but good to know it's in place if we have to, and we're lucky enough to be able to afford it. I realize many cannot. There's much to know about the various companies offering this including their ratings, how their policies work with the options & riders offered, claims stats, etc., and then choosing what is right for each individual. While most people tend to not think about LTC or discount it all together, I really think more people should learn about it and give it serious consideration. (No, I don't sell it). Frankly, IMHO, your sister is wise in thinking about her elder years that way.

I was thinking was socal said. You mention wanting "land for the kids", but often what kids want is access to other kids. I'm in an older suburb with smaller lots (e.g., 65-80' wide on average) and bands of little kids are always out and about in each other's yards, and mine. I love that! The trade off with having smaller yards is that my kids grew up in a great school district where they walked or biked to school, town, pool, parks, etc. - part of their lifestyle rather than being driven everywhere. It's nice for the parents, too, to have that neighborly support system when something comes up and the kids need watching. You may feel differently, but I'd caution that you make sure the land you want is for you and your spouse. Hopefully your kids will feel the same way, but if they don't at least you and your wife will enjoy the land.