|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Maybe, but I guess my question is does it hold when you break it by age group.
Such as: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/homeownership-is-historically-weakdont-blame-millennials/382010/
Likewise with something like this: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-average-family-saved-for-retirement-2016-3 (these are inflation adjusted dollars, it took me awhile to find where that was mentioned) where you can see the older generations have had most of upward change in average savings and the younger generation is mostly flat. Which is not necessarily saying much, obviously young people don't have much money, but it in general looks very stagnant for the younger generation.
Whereas the average savings of a family with members in the 32-to-37 age range is $31,644, the median savings is a bleak $480.
Though I'd like these charts to go back even further since they're not really capturing the type of world that previous generations grew up in (like people born in the 60s or 70s). Though of course there's a lot of complicating factors to such data.
|
Senate Democrats are eager to make Donald Trump pay a political price for nominating staunch conservatives to fill out his Cabinet, hoping to exact revenge for the GOP's stubborn opposition to President Barack Obama's nominees.
But there is little they can do about it -- and some top Democrats are now coming to regret it.
That's because Senate Democrats muscled through an unprecedented rules change in 2013 to weaken the power of the minority party to filibuster Cabinet-level appointees and most judicial nominees, now setting the threshold at 51 votes -- rather than 60 -- to overcome tactics aimed at derailing nominations.
With the Senate GOP poised to hold 52 seats next Congress, some Democrats now say they should have thought twice before making the rules change -- known on Capitol Hill as the "nuclear option."
"I do regret that," said Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat who voted for the rules change three years ago. "I frankly think many of us will regret that in this Congress because it would have been a terrific speed bump, potential emergency break, to have in our system to slow down nominees."
With their power weakened, Democrats are weighing how to make life difficult for the Senate GOP.
They are planning on making the fight over Rep. Tom Price's nomination to lead the Health and Human Services Department a proxy war over the GOP's plans to to dramatically overhaul Medicare. They want to turn Steven Mnuchin's nomination to lead the Treasury into a battle over regulating Wall Street. And they want to make Sen. Jeff Sessions answer for his hard-line stands on civil rights issues and against comprehensive immigration reform.
Senate Democrats plan to make speeches and mount objections to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's efforts to quickly schedule votes to confirm much of Trump's Cabinet by the time he is inaugurated in January. Under the rules, they could delay votes from taking place for a few days at a time, temporarily slowing down the Trump agenda.
But they ultimately won't be able to stop those nominees -- unless Republicans defect and join the Democratic opposition. And that fact has begun to grate at Democrats, who have complained bitterly at Republicans' stands against Obama's nominees -- most notably their unprecedented refusal to even give the President's Supreme Court choice, Merrick Garland, a hearing.
www.cnn.com
|
My girlfriend and I both make a ton of money and home ownership seems beyond us. Saving up 25K for a down payment when we're both trying to pay off loans is...difficult.
|
On December 06 2016 08:32 Mohdoo wrote:
My girlfriend and I both make a ton of money and home ownership seems beyond us. Saving up 25K for a down payment when we're both trying to pay off loans is...difficult.
Loans are definitely one of the big home ownership hurdles of our time, yes.
I'm guessing a high COL city doesn't help you much either.
|
On December 06 2016 08:22 Logo wrote:Maybe, but I guess my question is does it hold when you break it by age group. Such as: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/homeownership-is-historically-weakdont-blame-millennials/382010/Likewise with something like this: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-average-family-saved-for-retirement-2016-3 (these are inflation adjusted dollars, it took me awhile to find where that was mentioned) where you can see the older generations have had most of upward change in average savings and the younger generation is mostly flat. Which is not necessarily saying much, obviously young people don't have much money, but it in general looks very stagnant for the younger generation. Show nested quote +Whereas the average savings of a family with members in the 32-to-37 age range is $31,644, the median savings is a bleak $480. Though I'd like these charts to go back even further since they're not really capturing the type of world that previous generations grew up in (like people born in the 60s or 70s). Though of course there's a lot of complicating factors to such data.
it would be nice if the stats went back farther, but sadly they don't; and of course standards were a lot lower back then.
it also depends how young you looking at; as those articles note that gen-X is doing a bit worse than millenials, probably a lot cuz of the housing bubble bursting.
If you or your aforementioned friends or anyone wants to go over their budget and try to come up with a better plan to save more I'm always up for that. I'm a saver, woooh saving money!
it helps being a natural cheapskate of course.
|
On December 06 2016 08:36 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 08:32 Mohdoo wrote:
My girlfriend and I both make a ton of money and home ownership seems beyond us. Saving up 25K for a down payment when we're both trying to pay off loans is...difficult. Loans are definitely one of the big home ownership hurdles of our time, yes. I'm guessing a high COL city doesn't help you much either.
Yeah, it looks like any house worth actually living in is gonna be around $280K at least. So even 5% down payment is 14K lol T_T
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Do banks still want 20%??? But even 20% seems doable. I don't know maybe 14k just doesn't seem like all that much to me.
|
On December 06 2016 08:55 TanGeng wrote:
Do banks still want 20%??? But even 20% seems doable. I don't know maybe 14k just doesn't seem like all that much to me.
You need to put 20% or even 25% down to get the most favorable interest rates. You can always get another loan for the other part of the down payment if you have good enough credit.
But yeah, shit's expensive. Particularly when you add kids to the equation. There is literally no end to the amount of things that seem like "necessities" that you can dump money into.
|
you need 20% to avoid PMI iirc
i think part of the home ownership equation (it may be a small one) is that there's a trend of people preferring to rent rather than to own. a lot of folks i know don't want to lock themselves in anywhere because they might move for work/ whatever, or because the maintenance and all that is a huge bother. i was pretty set on buying a condo a year ago, but my enthusiasm has cooled a lot b/c of the hassle of ownership.
lifestyle inflation is pretty real too. smartphone, 50 inch tv, etc. that stuff adds up. it's not a necessity, but it's all stuff that is part of the "middle class lifestyle" that people want. a lot of "wealth" tied up in stuff like that.
|
ownership is overrated imho; and subsidized too much.
In modern times; where jobs don't as long, and a lifetime job is a rarity, having a fixed home is less useful, and the freer mobility of renting a bit better than it used to be.
I'd also say from an investment perspective it's not so good as a social policy due to it's associated variables. that is, much like i'ts bad to have your retirement savings in the company work for (because if the company fails than you lose your savings and your job), the availability of local jobs and the quality of the local economy greatly affect the local housing prices; so if your house is your major asset, a local downturn runs a risk of both hurting your primary savings and your employment.
There are of course a bunch of tax incentives and such which make a home somewhat better as a savings vehicle (to the point where it may well be worthwhile from a monetary perspective for the individual), but I don't think that those tax incentives should exist and I think it makes bad social policy.
I too get the feeling there's a lot of lifestyle inflation being part of it.
looks like no takers on people going over their budgets to save money. not surprising really, wouldn't expect too many to want to do that over tl.
|
On December 06 2016 08:31 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +Senate Democrats are eager to make Donald Trump pay a political price for nominating staunch conservatives to fill out his Cabinet, hoping to exact revenge for the GOP's stubborn opposition to President Barack Obama's nominees.
But there is little they can do about it -- and some top Democrats are now coming to regret it.
That's because Senate Democrats muscled through an unprecedented rules change in 2013 to weaken the power of the minority party to filibuster Cabinet-level appointees and most judicial nominees, now setting the threshold at 51 votes -- rather than 60 -- to overcome tactics aimed at derailing nominations.
With the Senate GOP poised to hold 52 seats next Congress, some Democrats now say they should have thought twice before making the rules change -- known on Capitol Hill as the "nuclear option."
"I do regret that," said Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat who voted for the rules change three years ago. "I frankly think many of us will regret that in this Congress because it would have been a terrific speed bump, potential emergency break, to have in our system to slow down nominees."
With their power weakened, Democrats are weighing how to make life difficult for the Senate GOP.
They are planning on making the fight over Rep. Tom Price's nomination to lead the Health and Human Services Department a proxy war over the GOP's plans to to dramatically overhaul Medicare. They want to turn Steven Mnuchin's nomination to lead the Treasury into a battle over regulating Wall Street. And they want to make Sen. Jeff Sessions answer for his hard-line stands on civil rights issues and against comprehensive immigration reform.
Senate Democrats plan to make speeches and mount objections to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's efforts to quickly schedule votes to confirm much of Trump's Cabinet by the time he is inaugurated in January. Under the rules, they could delay votes from taking place for a few days at a time, temporarily slowing down the Trump agenda.
But they ultimately won't be able to stop those nominees -- unless Republicans defect and join the Democratic opposition. And that fact has begun to grate at Democrats, who have complained bitterly at Republicans' stands against Obama's nominees -- most notably their unprecedented refusal to even give the President's Supreme Court choice, Merrick Garland, a hearing. www.cnn.com
I hope they just go ahead and get rid of the filibuster entirely. A super majority requirement for routine business is a step too far in our highly partisan environment. We might get some shitty legislation as a result, but I think the damage one party can do during 4-8 years is limited.
|
On December 06 2016 09:31 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 08:31 Introvert wrote:Senate Democrats are eager to make Donald Trump pay a political price for nominating staunch conservatives to fill out his Cabinet, hoping to exact revenge for the GOP's stubborn opposition to President Barack Obama's nominees.
But there is little they can do about it -- and some top Democrats are now coming to regret it.
That's because Senate Democrats muscled through an unprecedented rules change in 2013 to weaken the power of the minority party to filibuster Cabinet-level appointees and most judicial nominees, now setting the threshold at 51 votes -- rather than 60 -- to overcome tactics aimed at derailing nominations.
With the Senate GOP poised to hold 52 seats next Congress, some Democrats now say they should have thought twice before making the rules change -- known on Capitol Hill as the "nuclear option."
"I do regret that," said Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat who voted for the rules change three years ago. "I frankly think many of us will regret that in this Congress because it would have been a terrific speed bump, potential emergency break, to have in our system to slow down nominees."
With their power weakened, Democrats are weighing how to make life difficult for the Senate GOP.
They are planning on making the fight over Rep. Tom Price's nomination to lead the Health and Human Services Department a proxy war over the GOP's plans to to dramatically overhaul Medicare. They want to turn Steven Mnuchin's nomination to lead the Treasury into a battle over regulating Wall Street. And they want to make Sen. Jeff Sessions answer for his hard-line stands on civil rights issues and against comprehensive immigration reform.
Senate Democrats plan to make speeches and mount objections to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's efforts to quickly schedule votes to confirm much of Trump's Cabinet by the time he is inaugurated in January. Under the rules, they could delay votes from taking place for a few days at a time, temporarily slowing down the Trump agenda.
But they ultimately won't be able to stop those nominees -- unless Republicans defect and join the Democratic opposition. And that fact has begun to grate at Democrats, who have complained bitterly at Republicans' stands against Obama's nominees -- most notably their unprecedented refusal to even give the President's Supreme Court choice, Merrick Garland, a hearing. www.cnn.com I hope they just go ahead and get rid of the filibuster entirely. A super majority requirement for routine business is a step too far in our highly partisan environment. We might get some shitty legislation as a result, but I think the damage one party can do during 4-8 years is limited.
Rather than entirely remove the filibuster; I think it'd be sufficient to revert it to the original filibuster system. possibly with a few extra restrictions.
not sure how familiar you are with the topic or if you need elaboration.
|
On December 06 2016 09:31 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 08:31 Introvert wrote:Senate Democrats are eager to make Donald Trump pay a political price for nominating staunch conservatives to fill out his Cabinet, hoping to exact revenge for the GOP's stubborn opposition to President Barack Obama's nominees.
But there is little they can do about it -- and some top Democrats are now coming to regret it.
That's because Senate Democrats muscled through an unprecedented rules change in 2013 to weaken the power of the minority party to filibuster Cabinet-level appointees and most judicial nominees, now setting the threshold at 51 votes -- rather than 60 -- to overcome tactics aimed at derailing nominations.
With the Senate GOP poised to hold 52 seats next Congress, some Democrats now say they should have thought twice before making the rules change -- known on Capitol Hill as the "nuclear option."
"I do regret that," said Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat who voted for the rules change three years ago. "I frankly think many of us will regret that in this Congress because it would have been a terrific speed bump, potential emergency break, to have in our system to slow down nominees."
With their power weakened, Democrats are weighing how to make life difficult for the Senate GOP.
They are planning on making the fight over Rep. Tom Price's nomination to lead the Health and Human Services Department a proxy war over the GOP's plans to to dramatically overhaul Medicare. They want to turn Steven Mnuchin's nomination to lead the Treasury into a battle over regulating Wall Street. And they want to make Sen. Jeff Sessions answer for his hard-line stands on civil rights issues and against comprehensive immigration reform.
Senate Democrats plan to make speeches and mount objections to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's efforts to quickly schedule votes to confirm much of Trump's Cabinet by the time he is inaugurated in January. Under the rules, they could delay votes from taking place for a few days at a time, temporarily slowing down the Trump agenda.
But they ultimately won't be able to stop those nominees -- unless Republicans defect and join the Democratic opposition. And that fact has begun to grate at Democrats, who have complained bitterly at Republicans' stands against Obama's nominees -- most notably their unprecedented refusal to even give the President's Supreme Court choice, Merrick Garland, a hearing. www.cnn.com I hope they just go ahead and get rid of the filibuster entirely. A super majority requirement for routine business is a step too far in our highly partisan environment. We might get some shitty legislation as a result, but I think the damage one party can do during 4-8 years is limited.
Indeed I am no fan of the Democrats now going full on obstructionist.
If something truly insane gets proposed sure, do your best to stop it but an Eye for Eye just leaves the entire world blind as they say.
|
On December 06 2016 09:27 zlefin wrote:
ownership is overrated imho; and subsidized too much.
In modern times; where jobs don't as long, and a lifetime job is a rarity, having a fixed home is less useful, and the freer mobility of renting a bit better than it used to be.
I'd also say from an investment perspective it's not so good as a social policy due to it's associated variables. that is, much like i'ts bad to have your retirement savings in the company work for (because if the company fails than you lose your savings and your job), the availability of local jobs and the quality of the local economy greatly affect the local housing prices; so if your house is your major asset, a local downturn runs a risk of both hurting your primary savings and your employment.
There are of course a bunch of tax incentives and such which make a home somewhat better as a savings vehicle (to the point where it may well be worthwhile from a monetary perspective for the individual), but I don't think that those tax incentives should exist and I think it makes bad social policy.
I too get the feeling there's a lot of lifestyle inflation being part of it.
looks like no takers on people going over their budgets to save money. not surprising really, wouldn't expect too many to want to do that over tl.
I'm always very surprised by this because here in Germany it's exactly the other way around. Renters probably constitute 70% of the population, home ownership rates are almost reversed compared to the US. I also think it's not great for social mobility especially because job markets have become so volatile. If the local job market crashes as you point out everybody will try to run off and your home will be useless, home ownership isn't as much of an asset today as it was decades ago.
Independence is only great if you're doing well and because the environment shifts so drastically property is actually a pretty huge gamble nowadays.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On December 06 2016 05:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 05:46 oBlade wrote:
As much as we can compare people's experience and qualifications and what stances they've taken, it may be as simple as Trump not seeing the need to have another personality in the vein of Pence in one of the highest level posts that causes him to pass on Romney. He's already got that person at the top, so I expect a Corker/Petraeus/Huntsman. And he might not want to copy Obama with respect to making near-presidents head of the State Department. And then there's simply the backlash already. It could be Corker, maybe Petraeus, but I have a hard time believing that Trump would pick Huntsman. Regardless, I will be highly amused if Trump's "consideration" of Romney turns out to be nothing more than a multi-week public teabagging of someone who severely crossed him during the campaign.
I'd find having someone so vindictive/petty in a position of power to be quite troubling...
|
I think Trump really wanted Romney as SoS but his loyalists kind of went to bat against him, making it difficult.
|
Canada11417 Posts
The current filibuster system is stupid. The parties have found a gamebreaking exploiting and are using it to the max. However, I think there is still use for the filibuster, but I think there needs to be a requirement that the filibuster be on topic rather than reading Seuss' Green Eggs and Ham, phonebooks, or receipes. I mean at that point, they might as well drop the pretense of speaking and call it a sit in or the Bladder Control Session because that is pretty much all the filibuster has been reduced to.
|
On December 06 2016 09:50 Falling wrote:
The current filibuster system is stupid. The parties have found a gamebreaking exploiting and are using it to the max. However, I think there is still use for the filibuster, but I think there needs to be a requirement that the filibuster be on topic rather than reading Seuss' Green Eggs and Ham, phonebooks, or receipes. I mean at that point, they might as well drop the pretense of speaking and call it a sit in or the Bladder Control Session because that is pretty much all the filibuster has been reduced to.
These days they don't usually bother speaking at all. They just announce their intent to filibuster, so the opposing party won't bring up the measure for a vote.
|
On December 06 2016 09:31 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 08:31 Introvert wrote:Senate Democrats are eager to make Donald Trump pay a political price for nominating staunch conservatives to fill out his Cabinet, hoping to exact revenge for the GOP's stubborn opposition to President Barack Obama's nominees.
But there is little they can do about it -- and some top Democrats are now coming to regret it.
That's because Senate Democrats muscled through an unprecedented rules change in 2013 to weaken the power of the minority party to filibuster Cabinet-level appointees and most judicial nominees, now setting the threshold at 51 votes -- rather than 60 -- to overcome tactics aimed at derailing nominations.
With the Senate GOP poised to hold 52 seats next Congress, some Democrats now say they should have thought twice before making the rules change -- known on Capitol Hill as the "nuclear option."
"I do regret that," said Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat who voted for the rules change three years ago. "I frankly think many of us will regret that in this Congress because it would have been a terrific speed bump, potential emergency break, to have in our system to slow down nominees."
With their power weakened, Democrats are weighing how to make life difficult for the Senate GOP.
They are planning on making the fight over Rep. Tom Price's nomination to lead the Health and Human Services Department a proxy war over the GOP's plans to to dramatically overhaul Medicare. They want to turn Steven Mnuchin's nomination to lead the Treasury into a battle over regulating Wall Street. And they want to make Sen. Jeff Sessions answer for his hard-line stands on civil rights issues and against comprehensive immigration reform.
Senate Democrats plan to make speeches and mount objections to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's efforts to quickly schedule votes to confirm much of Trump's Cabinet by the time he is inaugurated in January. Under the rules, they could delay votes from taking place for a few days at a time, temporarily slowing down the Trump agenda.
But they ultimately won't be able to stop those nominees -- unless Republicans defect and join the Democratic opposition. And that fact has begun to grate at Democrats, who have complained bitterly at Republicans' stands against Obama's nominees -- most notably their unprecedented refusal to even give the President's Supreme Court choice, Merrick Garland, a hearing. www.cnn.com I hope they just go ahead and get rid of the filibuster entirely. A super majority requirement for routine business is a step too far in our highly partisan environment. We might get some shitty legislation as a result, but I think the damage one party can do during 4-8 years is limited.
There's a case to be made for removing it from the appointment process, but I think it's quite important for legislation.
|
Why I Will Not Cast My Electoral Vote for Donald Trump
DALLAS — I am a Republican presidential elector, one of the 538 people asked to choose officially the president of the United States. Since the election, people have asked me to change my vote based on policy disagreements with Donald J. Trump. In some cases, they cite the popular vote difference. I do not think president-elects should be disqualified for policy disagreements. I do not think they should be disqualified because they won the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office.
Fifteen years ago, as a firefighter, I was part of the response to the Sept. 11 attacks against our nation. That attack and this year’s election may seem unrelated, but for me the relationship becomes clearer every day.
George W. Bush is an imperfect man, but he led us through the tragic days following the attacks. His leadership showed that America was a great nation. That was also the last time I remember the nation united. I watch Mr. Trump fail to unite America and drive a wedge between us.
Mr. Trump goes out of his way to attack the cast of “Saturday Night Live” for bias. He tweets day and night, but waited two days to offer sympathy to the Ohio State community after an attack there. He does not encourage civil discourse, but chooses to stoke fear and create outrage.
This is unacceptable. For me, America is that shining city on a hill that Ronald Reagan envisioned. It has problems. It has challenges. These can be met and overcome just as our nation overcame Sept. 11.
The United States was set up as a republic. Alexander Hamilton provided a blueprint for states’ votes. Federalist 68 argued that an Electoral College should determine if candidates are qualified, not engaged in demagogy, and independent from foreign influence. Mr. Trump shows us again and again that he does not meet these standards. Given his own public statements, it isn’t clear how the Electoral College can ignore these issues, and so it should reject him.
I have poured countless hours into serving the party of Lincoln and electing its candidates. I will pour many more into being more faithful to my party than some in its leadership. But I owe no debt to a party. I owe a debt to my children to leave them a nation they can trust.
Mr. Trump lacks the foreign policy experience and demeanor needed to be commander in chief. During the campaign more than 50 Republican former national security officials and foreign policy experts co-signed a letter opposing him. In their words, “he would be a dangerous president.” During the campaign Mr. Trump even said Russia should hack Hillary Clinton’s emails. This encouragement of an illegal act has troubled many members of Congress and troubles me.
Hamilton also reminded us that a president cannot be a demagogue. Mr. Trump urged violence against protesters at his rallies during the campaign. He speaks of retribution against his critics. He has surrounded himself with advisers such as Stephen K. Bannon, who claims to be a Leninist and lauds villains and their thirst for power, including Darth Vader. “Rogue One,” the latest “Star Wars” installment, arrives later this month. I am not taking my children to see it to celebrate evil, but to show them that light can overcome it.
Gen. Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s pick for national security adviser, has his own checkered past about rules. He installed a secret internet connection in his Pentagon office despite rules to the contrary. Sound familiar?
Finally, Mr. Trump does not understand that the Constitution expressly forbids a president to receive payments or gifts from foreign governments. We have reports that Mr. Trump’s organization has business dealings in Argentina, Bahrain, Taiwan and elsewhere. Mr. Trump could be impeached in his first year given his dismissive responses to financial conflicts of interest. He has played fast and loose with the law for years. He may have violated the Cuban embargo, and there are reports of improprieties involving his foundation and actions he took against minority tenants in New York. Mr. Trump still seems to think that pattern of behavior can continue.
The election of the next president is not yet a done deal. Electors of conscience can still do the right thing for the good of the country. Presidential electors have the legal right and a constitutional duty to vote their conscience. I believe electors should unify behind a Republican alternative, an honorable and qualified man or woman such as Gov. John Kasich of Ohio. I pray my fellow electors will do their job and join with me in discovering who that person should be.
Fifteen years ago, I swore an oath to defend my country and Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. On Dec. 19, I will do it again.
~ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
