sherpa

Another silly claim. J D Vance surpasses any of the other three in the Pres/VP sweepstakes with regard to intellectual capacity. But, let's see if we can spot a trend on the Dem side. Obama picks Biden, clearly less skilled. No threat of claiming attention over Obama. Biden picks Harris. Notably incompetent and no threat to become a brighter star. Harris picks Tim Walz, on "instinct." An absolute clueless dolt. No threat there. I see a pattern.

Wrong again. I voted for neither pres candidate, same as 2016 and 2020. You are a contrarian indicator to truth and good sense. 0 for everything.

This entire forum is getting more and more preposterous. Gov officials, law enforcement, the National Guard, when activated, do not limit their response because of political signs. The entire assertion is preposterous. They are employed and paid by the taxpayers to perform their duties. If they are actively attacked, they can defend. Is as absurd as suggesting that someone who is elected on a Tuesday, prior to even being confirmed, who has no constitutional political powers, is supposed to negotiate a peace settlement with a belligerent. The entire suggestion is remarkably ignorant and the action would be treasonous. Grossly illegal. Some folks here need to stop suggesting this wackiness. This craziness strains credulity and is foolish and embarrassing.

They lost because they replaced a candidate who could no longer think with one who could never think. That's why the other valid points mentioned ever came about. Horrible end of Afghanistan. Irresponsible fiscal policy resulting in dangerous inflation. Gross irresponsibility at the southern border which is going to take years to clean up and cause major damage to individuals and families, and be extremely expensive. Goofy duplicitous foreign policy which stupid attempts to appease the wrong side, like installing a stupid floating pier in Gaza that had no chance to work, was very expensive and has cost a life. Choosing a deeply insecure nut as "new" VP candidate.

I think that's pretty much a standard response. During my career I have known/worked with many folks who moved to foreign countries. Belize, Costa Rica, Mexico, Colombia, Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil, Dominican Republic to name a few. It is easy to talk oneself into it because it seems attractive. More value, OK healthcare, decent tax law etc. But there is a lot of downside, and they generally returned. Questionable governments, missing family and the cultural things in the US, a potential language issue, unreliability of contractors, very obvious sexism, a bit of resentment in some places and on and on. If one is serious, it makes much sense to take a year to live there. Speaking of the USVI, I wouldn't do that. St. Thomas is the only place someone intentionally tried to run me over. In St. Croix I needed to mail something and when I got to the head of the line at the Post Office the woman told me to go back to the end. There are anti white racial tones there if you have any deeper involvement than tourist observations. Get hit my a hurricane there and find out how well the gov works and cares about expats.

No, not in its entirety. There are items in it that allow law enforcement processes that were not possible prior to its passage. Thanks to Joe and Comeonin-ala Harris, We just let in over 10 million people that we know nothing about. We probably need some of those authorizations in order to provide some measure of safety. Let's look at it in a couple years after we get this problem figured out.

I'm not going to respond to the idiocy of dictators being unconstitutional. Of course he can't be reelected. I've never seen any political lunatic, ever, claim that someone was a lame duck two months before being sworn in to a four year term.

The entire premise is preposterous. No surprise there. He is elected to a four year term, as all are in that office. No candidate can ever assume reelection, ergo, they must serve in the office for four years. If it turns out they seek and are awarded reelection, so be it. Just a nonsense premise.

Let's get through the next two months. We can worry about the next Administration then.

Don't know. I think she is totally incompetent, but it seemed that the speech was an indication that she seems to think she has a future.

Not bad, but it seemed like someone wanting to set up her future political career rather than acknowledging a serious loss. No surprise.

Quite shocking. I was doing something else and kind of listening to the NY AG. Did she actually say that "this was not the result we expected?" Just horrible.

The fact is that the Dems installed an atrocious candidate after they tried to fool the country by never admitting that their acting president and candidate was mentally infirm until it became grossly obvious to every single person. No record of achievement. Unable and unwilling to answer questions. Just terrible.

I was at an intersection waiting to cross in a large city. An old 70's era Datsun 240Z stopped at the light. I said, "Look at that. An old classic 240Z, and it's being being driven by a snail ." The guy I was with said, "No that's a rare 240S." The light turns green and the car zooms away. The guy says, "Look at that S car go." Sorry. Clock change humor.

Love 'em. The most fun you can have. Favorite is an F-18 vs an F-15. 40 mile head on set up. No radar missiles. Only tail quarter heaters or guns.

I prefer the foreign restaurant experience. In the US, there is a "flip the table" vibe. In Europe and South America, it is customary to spend a lot more time eating, and I like that. It's kind of "your table for as long as you want." The US' service staff are somewhat intrusive. As they approach the table they begin talking without regard for the party/couple at the table. In other places their service is better and far more subtle. I like that, and I really don't care what your name is, so don't bother telling me. Glasses filled without even being noticed etc. There is a far higher percentage of career servers in other countries as opposed to the college student in the US. I used to go to South America weekly during my career and would occasionally take my wife, who is a California blonde, looking nothing like a native South American. The service we got was noticeably different when she was with me than when it was just me an my male coworkers. Anyway, I prefer the experience in other countries to the US.

Revised from their original numbers. Not revised to a net down. The point is that making this all political is a fool's errand. Judging economic health on monthly reports is equally so. The economy is OK. That will never move me to the Dems current group. That will never happen.

Settle down. Use the three, (or more), moving average. Recent jobs report probably heavily influenced by two serious storms.

I am quite aware of calculating net worth, and of course home equity is part of the equation, but it must be replaced if sold, unless the owner dies. It creates a tax burden and it can create a capital gains tax. Simply not as valuable as liquid assets. Nothing wrong with that. In the case of Trump, or anyone else owning income producing real estate, it's a bit different than a simple personal residence. That's why things as simple as being approved for a margin brokerage account, or investment instruments requiring investor net worth qualification will not consider primary residence in the qualification.

I'm not going to speculate on property value over the next decade. What I am asserting is that unrealized gains should not be counted on to continue, nor used to base one's net worth on. Only liquid assets, those than can be capitalized in a few month's time, are what really matters. Pumping trillions of dollars into the economy is always going to result in inflated prices of competing commodities, whether stocks, real estate or other assets. Print money---->devalue money. That doesn't mean extra wealth. It simply means higher numbers.

I didn't dismiss it out of hand. What I am stating is that including property value as part of net worth is not a great idea, nor indicative of true economic growth. It must be replaced unless you die, at similarly inflated values. Property taxes drain an increased amount with the annual appraisal value. There is also a potential capital gains tax to be considered, further reducing real value.

I am very familiar with using equity. There is risk involved. One cannot assume that property will not undergo a reversion to the mean. One cannot assume property values will even remain stagnant. The owner of that property is paying increased taxes every year, based on appraised value. In addition if it is to be liquidated, there may well be significant tax consequences. The point is that using property value as a variable in net worth, as opposed to liquid asset value is deceptive. It must be replaced unless you die, and that appreciation is in the market options for replacement.

It seems that you are arguing a strategy for home equity line of credit. That is not only not part of a discussion of net worth, it is not part of the issue. Home equity is an asset that if used, needs to be replaced, at much higher cost unless downsizing. See 2008 for risks involved in real estate values. The way to truly value net worth is in liquid assets, not home/land equity.

Net worth is a sketchy way to determine people's situations. It includes real estate, which must be replaced unless one, or both dies. Liquid assets is a much better indicator, and without doing the math, I'm quite sure it has not kept up with inflation over the past four years.

Quite false, as always. My "claim" was that people were put in places they were not qualified to be in, and that resulted in death and destruction of tens of millions of dollars. I made no claim that you assert. I specifically claim that in these two instances, that was absolutely the case.