Political Posts

[dealraker]

7 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

I'm sure he had his flaws. At least he didn't use his position to loot the country like the Biden, Clintons and Pelosi.   

 

He certainly loved the country far more than the money.

Looting has an all time leader Cubs; that's your man!  No one compares.

 

[73 Reds]

12 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

I'm sure he had his flaws. At least he didn't use his position to loot the country like the Biden, Clintons and Pelosi.   

 

He certainly loved the country far more than the money.

Yep.  Thank goodness for State borders.  The only opinions who counted were those of his constituents.  Isn't it ironic that those who knew him best from both sides of the aisle were quick to sing his praises even though they didn't always agree?  

[DooDiligence]

50 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

@DooDiligence. This post reflects badly only you. You may disagree with the

man (as do others here) but this doesn’t mean one should spit on his grave figuratively  speaking.

I always try to keep in mind that how you talk about another person says more about you than the person you are talking about.

 

The man was an embarrassment to the human race.

I wouldn't spit on his grave when I could piss on it instead.

[cubsfan]

1 minute ago, dealraker said:

Looting has an all time leader Cubs; that's your man!  No one compares.

 

Nothing like funding the majority of your own 2016 campaign out of your own pocket, denying any special groups influence.  Nothing like donating your entire Presidential 8 year salary.

 

How soon we forget.

[73 Reds]

1 minute ago, cubsfan said:

 

Nothing like funding the majority of your own 2016 campaign out of your own pocket, denying any special groups influence.  Nothing like donating your entire Presidential 8 year salary.

 

How soon we forget.

Cubs, they don't forget; they ignore.  That's all part of the narrative.

[DooDiligence]

LOL

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/06/06/how-donald-trump-shifted-kids-cancer-charity-money-into-his-business/

[DooDiligence]

Never forget.

 

[cubsfan]

29 minutes ago, DooDiligence said:

LOL

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/06/06/how-donald-trump-shifted-kids-cancer-charity-money-into-his-business/

 

Oh my god!  

 

The Clintons, Biden and Obama were ALL FINED  for several campaign finance violations!

 

Moreover - the Clintons led the way in showing their Presidential successors in how to set up a "Foundation" and stuff their pockets with hundreds of millions of dollars - while selling political influence!

 

Hillary to the Russians - "Donate to my Husband's foundation - and I'll give you all the US uranium you want - don't forget - I'm Secretary of State and I will be the next US President!"

 

Joe Biden to the Chinese and Ukrainians - "Shut down those investigations , fund my crackhead son's phony "hedge fund" and give him no-show board seats - and I'll release the billions in aid to your country"

 

 

 

 

Edited 6 hours ago by cubsfan

[Red Lion]

2 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

If so, isn't the obvious answer to earn more?  We can talk about housing supply vs. demand all day long but the fact is useful jobs and degrees will go a long way to resolve that issue for homebuyers.   People who are gainfully employed to their capabilities tend to have less problems affording a house.   Apologists tend to be from one political party and support many of the same issues that contribute to high housing costs.  And there is always the option to move somewhere that is more affordable.  Yet there are people who will complain no matter what.  Like most things, the longer term solution to high housing prices is high housing prices.   But don't tell that to folks who don't understand fundamental economics. 

 

Absolutely, earn more. 
 

I’m not sure there really is a political fix to the housing issue. California made a lot of reforms to streamline the construction of guest houses, and costs have continued to go up. Labor and materials and modern building codes are very expensive everywhere. 
 
If anything lowers the price of construction it’s going to be technology or manufacturing companies, not politicians. 

 

And it feels to me like there’s more upside to rent than there is to house prices themselves. So accepting “I’ll never own a home” is very risky. 

[SharperDingaan]

15 hours ago, Red Lion said:

Why would the purchase price come down (barring financial  or real estate crisis) if there's a structural shortage of homes, we aren't building them fast enough, and the price of building a home is equal to or higher than buying one? To me, it seems like the most likely scenario is that housing/rent continues to eat up a larger share of budgets than it did in the past. 

 

There is too much of the wrong kind of housing stock (one room condos built &/or pre-construction), that are selling at distressed prices as interest rates rise and prices fall .... wiping out new buyer and speculator equity. Too little of the needed stock in the right places, and new build cost too expensive for the target market.  

 

That 2-3 bedroom in the suburbs, plus transport to/from work, plus the required car to get around too expensive for the family that would live in it. The service cost (mortgage, utils, etc.) on the new build cost of the 2-3 bedroom condo near a rail terminal too expensive as well.

 

The hope is higher income &/or higher migration, yet average income is falling, and ICE is systematically reducing population via deportation. House prices either fall as service costs rise, or those living in the house are increasingly multi-generational ..... living on different floors, vs rooms on the same floor.

 

Not most older 2-3 bedroom housing stock, and the US doesn't do multi-generational (grand parents, parents, kids all in the same house) living well. Ageing populations worsening it.

 

The Toronto experience .......

 

SD

 

[dealraker]

2 hours ago, cubsfan said:

 

Nothing like funding the majority of your own 2016 campaign out of your own pocket, denying any special groups influence.  Nothing like donating your entire Presidential 8 year salary.

 

How soon we forget.

Uhh...not exactly.  

[73 Reds]

2 hours ago, Red Lion said:

 

Absolutely, earn more. 
 

I’m not sure there really is a political fix to the housing issue. California made a lot of reforms to streamline the construction of guest houses, and costs have continued to go up. Labor and materials and modern building codes are very expensive everywhere. 
 
If anything lowers the price of construction it’s going to be technology or manufacturing companies, not politicians. 

 

And it feels to me like there’s more upside to rent than there is to house prices themselves. So accepting “I’ll never own a home” is very risky. 

The usual whiners and complainers (not you) extrapolate present events into the indefinite future, just like they always do.  They sound like a broken record and assess blame to suit their narrative.  Nary a solution, that would require some thought. 

[cubsfan]

5 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

The usual whiners and complainers (not you) extrapolate present events into the indefinite future, just like they always do.  They sound like a broken record and assess blame to suit their narrative.  Nary a solution, that would require some thought. 

 

It seems to me, some relief in government permitting would go a long to assist housing.  When you have these situations, like Pacific Palisades, where 18 months later, government just stops everything - denying rebuilding - it's a tragedy.

 

My own experience, in Northern Illinois, Chicagoland - hit home for me. Being a Berkshire owner - I was impressed at the quality, speed and cost of many of the Clayton Homes on display in Omaha.  I sought out Clayton and discussed with their dealers.  Result: Clayton told me they "can't" build in Chicago land because of building codes, permitting as a result of "union protection".  Basically, it's impossible.

 

I owned some vacant land - and figured it would work well as an investment property - the numbers were attractive - but not with the political power of unions controlling local government.

 

It makes me suspicious of places like CA knowing all the barriers in ILL.    Not at all a big deal for me - but if you are a first time home,,, another story.

[73 Reds]

2 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

It seems to me, some relief in government permitting would go a long to assist housing.  When you have these situations, like Pacific Palisades, where 18 months later, government just stops everything - denying rebuilding - it's a tragedy.

 

My own experience, in Northern Illinois, Chicagoland - hit home for me. Being a Berkshire owner - I was impressed at the quality, speed and cost of many of the Clayton Homes on display in Omaha.  I sought out Clayton and discussed with their dealers.  Result: Clayton told me they "can't" build in Chicago land because of building codes, permitting as a result of "union protection".  Basically, it's impossible.

 

I owned some vacant land - and figured it would work well as an investment property - the numbers were attractive - but not with the political power of unions controlling local government.

 

It makes me suspicious of places like CA knowing all the barriers in ILL.    Not at all a big deal for me - but if you are a first time home,,, another story.

I just can't understand why any first-time homeowner believes they have a right to the perfect home in the perfect neighborhood.   Buy what you can afford, work harder so you can afford more, or live somewhere else that is affordable.    

[Parsad]

4 hours ago, DooDiligence said:

Never forget.

 

 

All gentle protestors exercising their rights confronted by planted thugs by the Justice Department.  This was all because of Joe Biden!  Pretty sure Obama is one of the guys wearing a helmet as well!  Cheers!

[Parsad]

3 hours ago, cubsfan said:

 

Oh my god!  

 

The Clintons, Biden and Obama were ALL FINED  for several campaign finance violations!

 

Moreover - the Clintons led the way in showing their Presidential successors in how to set up a "Foundation" and stuff their pockets with hundreds of millions of dollars - while selling political influence!

 

Hillary to the Russians - "Donate to my Husband's foundation - and I'll give you all the US uranium you want - don't forget - I'm Secretary of State and I will be the next US President!"

 

Joe Biden to the Chinese and Ukrainians - "Shut down those investigations , fund my crackhead son's phony "hedge fund" and give him no-show board seats - and I'll release the billions in aid to your country"

 

 

 

 

 

Sure!  If they did it, we should do it!  What a shitty excuse.

 

It's like the losers who all jump at cash accidentally coming out of an ATM or Brink's armored car if it flipped over on the highway.  Everybody's doin' it! 

 

The black rioters do it in small ways in hundreds of thousands or millions including mobs.  The experts like Clinton's and Trump's do it in hundreds of millions with no riot!  Cheers!

[Parsad]

No middleman required this time.  Trump pays off E. Jean Carroll...albeit unwillingly!  Cheers!

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/small-business/articles/carroll-5-6-million-trump-150322177.html

[DooDiligence]

He's always thinking about Obama.

[Maverick47]

3 hours ago, SharperDingaan said:

Not most older 2-3 bedroom housing stock, and the US doesn't do multi-generational (grand parents, parents, kids all in the same house) living well. Ageing populations worsening it.

Just an observation here from having worked in the US residential housing insurance business for a few decades.  Average loss costs for a home insurance policy regularly increased faster than CPI inflation for that entire period of time.  Part of the cost inflation had to do with some climate change and getting better at estimating/modeling the average annual costs of catastrophes such as storms, tornadoes, hurricanes and wildfires.

 

But at least as much, if not more of the inflation arose from the newer housing stock being added each year being larger and more complex in terms of systems and features than the relatively modest, smaller, century old or older homes being demolished and removed from the overall housing stock.  More bathrooms in newer homes, more complex plumbing in kitchen areas, more open concept designs, meaning if flooring gets damaged in a plumbing accident, it’s more difficult for a claims adjuster to determine that the acceptable repaired area could stop at an obvious visual break point such as a threshold doorway to a hall.  I recall one water damage claim where a plumbing fixture in an upstairs bathroom broke and damaged bamboo flooring in and near the bathroom, but that same flooring continued uninterrupted throughout the rest of house, down the staircase, all throughout an open concept ground floor level, etc.  All of it needed to be replaced at a cost of well over $100,000 compared to the cost of about $10,000 if similar damage had occurred in an older home with doors, hallways, etc.

 

The average square footage, number of bathrooms, quality of construction, etc all went up year over year, while the average household size tended to get smaller.  Without a significant multi generational sharing of housing costs, it’s fair to say that the cost to heat and cool a home, pay for other utilities, including internet, cable, regular maintenance and upkeep, property insurance, taxes, mortgage has risen much faster than inflation in pay over that same time frame.

 

That’s just another reason that the housing supply and affordability issue has been so challenging to address. 

[cubsfan]

14 minutes ago, Maverick47 said:

Just an observation here from having worked in the US residential housing insurance business for a few decades.  Average loss costs for a home insurance policy regularly increased faster than CPI inflation for that entire period of time.  Part of the cost inflation had to do with some climate change and getting better at estimating/modeling the average annual costs of catastrophes such as storms, tornadoes, hurricanes and wildfires.

 

But at least as much, if not more of the inflation arose from the newer housing stock being added each year being larger and more complex in terms of systems and features than the relatively modest, smaller, century old or older homes being demolished and removed from the overall housing stock.  More bathrooms in newer homes, more complex plumbing in kitchen areas, more open concept designs, meaning if flooring gets damaged in a plumbing accident, it’s more difficult for a claims adjuster to determine that the acceptable repaired area could stop at an obvious visual break point such as a threshold doorway to a hall.  I recall one water damage claim where a plumbing fixture in an upstairs bathroom broke and damaged bamboo flooring in and near the bathroom, but that same flooring continued uninterrupted throughout the rest of house, down the staircase, all throughout an open concept ground floor level, etc.  All of it needed to be replaced at a cost of well over $100,000 compared to the cost of about $10,000 if similar damage had occurred in an older home with doors, hallways, etc.

 

The average square footage, number of bathrooms, quality of construction, etc all went up year over year, while the average household size tended to get smaller.  Without a significant multi generational sharing of housing costs, it’s fair to say that the cost to heat and cool a home, pay for other utilities, including internet, cable, regular maintenance and upkeep, property insurance, taxes, mortgage has risen much faster than inflation in pay over that same time frame.

 

That’s just another reason that the housing supply and affordability issue has been so challenging to address. 

 

Excellent input.  

 

One of the things I've been told in regards to California is local restrictions on building small houses. Not sure if you have a view on that or if it's a factor..