gehringer_2
-
Posts
24,962 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
189
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Store
Articles
Posts posted by gehringer_2
-
-
On 2/13/2026 at 9:00 AM, Tigeraholic1 said:
Looky there, nice
"This week, there was yet another warning that many homeowners might be headed for trouble.
The mortgage delinquency rates for lower-income households are surging, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Center for Microeconomic Data, which recently released its Household Debt and Credit report for the fourth quarter of 2025.
According to New York Fed data, the 90-plus-day mortgage delinquency rate for families in the lowest-income bracket jumped from 0.5 percent in 2021 to nearly 3 percent by the end of 2025. Meanwhile, folks in the highest-income areas are doing just fine, maintaining “historically lower delinquency rates.”
It’s another reminder that the U.S. economy is largely benefiting people with means, while financial storm clouds are gathering over those who can least afford a rainy day. As the New York Fed points out, “financial distress appears to be deepening for households in lower-income areas.”
When the Fed examined what might account for the disparities in mortgage performance, it concluded the job market could be a major contributor.
Although the latest jobs report from the Labor Department shows some gains in January, the rebound was limited to just a few sectors, such as health care.
Nationwide, unemployment is relatively low, but “worsening” regional labor markets are making it hard for people to keep up with their mortgage payments.
“Two-thirds of counties have seen their local unemployment rates rise, and 5 percent of the population lives in counties where unemployment rates have risen by more than 1.6 percentage points,” according to the New York Fed."
this is from WaPo
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/02/14/mortgage-problems-delinquencies/
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, casimir said:
Yes.
OT, but I've been looking at audio amps recently. I still have a class B rig (110 W/ch RMS) I built years ago and all the new stuff is class D, and it's actually not always easy to get an answer to that question. In large part because the Class D people feel it's irrelevant for class D amps.
-
2 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:
I think you just described the Going to Work Pistons.
I think this group plays even more against the grain than that one. Ben was really the only outlier on that team. Other than giving up O for D to the extreme at center (and you did have Okur/Rasheed as PF/C) I thought that group played a pretty conventional game. The book says this team is way too offensively challenged, doesn't have the height to protect the rim, and doesn't even have that many good on-ball defenders to be a great defensive team. But they do it anyway.
IIRC, years ago Denver ( I think it was Denver anyway) thought they could change the game by running their opposition off the floor, but the league ended up going in the opposite direction. I feel this Piston team is more in that position, but with a better chance of making it work because they run and defend, Denver just ran.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, casimir said:
67.5 watts per channel, baby cakes.
is that RMS or just peak?
-
2 minutes ago, romad1 said:
Citizen’s United is a huge problem.
Absolutley.
-
15 minutes ago, romad1 said:
Its been interesting to see how many people in other countries are resigning from posts because of their part in the Epstein/Trump pedo scandal. Its our media that is broken. And its getting worse as Trump's admin continues to greenlight consolidation in the hands of his allies.
I don't know if it's our media or our populace which is more broken.
I've been thinking that part of what is doing in America is that one of the fundamental premises of the Founding Fathers has failed. The idea always was that the elites would hold each other accountable because they had to compete for the votes of the common people that way. But in the US the elites have figured out that they actually don't have to do that. Both sides have realized that you simply take accountability off the table and while you and the other side may trade being in control once in a while, your status in the elite is never really at risk over your conduct. Accountability's last stand was Watergate in 1974.
Since then the Dems opened the door with Clinton and the GOP has driven a Mack Truck through it with Bush and Trump.
-
35 minutes ago, chasfh said:
I’m asking because I wonder whether they are coming around to recommending colonoscopies every five years being the new standard. They did move the recommended age for first colonoscopy up from 50 to 45, and colorectal cancer is on the rise.
At UM they put me on a 5 yr schedule as they found a polyp on my first, otherwise it would have been 10. After having 2 clear they don't want to do another for 10. Of course 10 yrs is an eternity in medical science anymore so you can figure those recommendations are being reviewed on shorter intervals than that.
-
30 minutes ago, chasfh said:
I usually smoke my bacon. Either that or the bacon factory smokes it for me.
as long as your bacon factory's smoke doesn't comes in a bottle.
(although to be perfectly honest, what's in an actual fire probably isn't all that much worse than what's in the bottle.....🤷♂️)
-
10 minutes ago, chasfh said:
So when it comes down to it, voting for a third party candidate you already know is going to lose is an exercise in futility and, depending on how much you want to brag about your political savvy for voting third party in the first place, vainglory. I’s your right to do so at any time, and no one can prevent you from doing so. It’s just that there are times when the effect of your protest vote on the entire body politic, and body social, matters more than others, which should inform a voter’s decision on voting third party versus holding your nose and voting for the lesser of two evils.
yup.
And then there is the voter that for my money is the worst, which is the guy who pulls the lever out of tribal loyalty without even taking any real thought or regard for the potential consequences. "I don't care if the ship goes down as long as my 'side' always wins!"
-
51 minutes ago, Deleterious said:
There are a few equal weight S&P 500 funds if that is more your style.
I've been fairly aggressive for the last several years, but both because I'm uncomfortable with valuations and because I'm now older, I'm just pulling back in general, esp on anything related to the mega caps. I don't really like doing investment homework all that much. I'll spend a lot of time on it, buy some things, then let things ride quite a while between reviews. I think now is a good time to do some re-positioning.
-
40 minutes ago, ewsieg said:
In short, the 2 party system has plenty of issues, but 1 thing its really good at, is when the country sees solutions or other good ideas that can help our country but aren't being addressed, the losers have time to understand those issues and communicate them out. And good ideas tend to win elections.
This has been the Dems biggest problem IMO, as the middle class was becoming more an d more stressed, instead of going for the opening and moving into new economic thinking, they if anything hewed even closer to GOP trickle down, don't rock the boat, keep the corps happy, economic conservatism, and that included Obama. Biden was the first Dem to finally start taking on middle class economic issues but his efforts in that direction were lost in a lot of other noise. Part of this is the structure of campaign finance under Citizen's United - neither party is willing to risk alienating their corporate funders, but a big piece of this is just loss of intellectual creativity. They haven't had any new ideas/approaches to offer that they could make resonate as campaign assets.
The only dems out there there that are willing to at least try to move the debate on structural economics (as opposed to just talking about more entitlements-though they do talk about that a lot too!) are the young progressives like AOC who are basically self-funding themselves through the internet. And of course Elizabeth Warren, because MA politics has always been a little different.
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:
The worst numbers for measuring economic health are the probably market indexes. They are measuring something in which the majority of American are unable to participate. Why would someone who has no money to invest care about the S&P 500?
interesting note on the indexes. In the same way it has become the case that GDP is measuring gains in too narrow a segment of the economy to be meaningful for the general population, the S&P 500 isn't even a decent indicator of the overall health of American business because the market cap of the Mag7 tech companies have exploded to such huge numbers that that is all you see in what the index's value, the other 493 stocks hardly matter. My marker for this is that I was holding an S&P index fund and got a message from the fund manager last month that they had to suspend the normal fund by-law about how large a percentage of the index could be concentrated in a small number of stocks because it had come into conflict with the rule that the fund had to hold the whole 500 in proportion to market cap.
That's about when I decided to get out.
-
1 hour ago, Screwball said:
The CPI is our inflation indicator, as we all know.
It's such a good number the even the Federal Reserve doesn't use it.
I think in general BLS is probably as good or better than the stat group anywhere in the world. I think the bigger problem is that we are willfully ignorant about paying attention to what the numbers do and don't mean. No greater example than the near total uncoupling of GDP and the economic health of an average American family. As long as we keep believing in the myths about certain numbers instead of paying attention better numbers that actually tell you something useful, we'll keep getting bad results for ordinary people. The old saw is that you get what you measure. We measure GDP so we keep getting GDP, even as the real socio-ecomomic health of the country goes down the tubes.
The numbers may not be corrupt, but how we use them is getting to be.
-
1
-
-
what's funny to me about the Pistons is that at least by any conventional basketball wisdom, the team is highly flawed and "anybody can see" their weaknesses and the kind of player move they need to make to be better. That's not the typical reaction to the team with the best record in the league, which usually gets the 'look at how all these pieces fit together so perfectly' type treatment.
On one hand, it's probably true that it's gotten to where the NBA regular season just doesn't pressure a team enough and that conventional wisdom will rear its ugly head quickly in the playoffs. But OTOH, if they do some winning in the playoffs, we may have to look at the possibility that they represent something of a paradigm shift in how to win in the NBA.
-
2 hours ago, buddha said:
why not just go to 64 teams?
If reports are to be believed, player salary costs for teams are reaching $40M/yr. The only way to cover that is more games.
-
31 minutes ago, pfife said:
Piker was also talking about Newsome vs JV Dance in 2028 but every post since acted like it was Newsome vs Trump, or at least glossed over any difference JVDance instead of trump would make in the voting calculus.
Newsom seems to be on a bit of a popularity roll in CA recently.
Just as discussion - I tend to think CA is not quite as progressive as people in other parts of the country think. There is a lot of upper middle class suburbia in CA and those people are never really that far from a low tax GOP that could bring itself back to sanity. Plus, as Trump was able to leverage in FLA for example, the Hispanic population is not as liberal on social issues as progressives are either, but of course for the time being the GOP has now totally poisoned the well with whatever support Trump got from them in 2024.. But still, if you take immigration/racism off the table in a post Trump GOP (of course not likely but just spitballing here) that's another population that's not just going to fall in line lockstep with a strongly progressive Dem party. So bottom line, I won't be surprised to see a lot of intraparty sparks fly if (when!) Newsom decides he's running in '28.
Personally, I have trouble trusting guys with perfect hair (Clinton, Newsom, Romney, Trump all qualify there)
-
1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:
Perhaps, it is the hope that they can start some kind of momentum. Ross Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992. That's a lot votes. It didn't go anywhere, but perhaps the right person in the right time could change that.
Yeah - There might have been enough voter sentiment to get a third party going at that point but Ross wasn't really interested in building a movement, he just wanted to be President. I tend to think if a new party takes hold - probably eventually displacing one of the main ones, it will start local, become a established presence in a few states first, then organize nationally once they have an established constituency. I don't see the likelihood of a viable new party coming out of independent Presidential bids.
-
6 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:
That is the most probable outcome. It sounds like he has a high floor and I think think there is a good chance he makes the opening day roster, but I would expect some troubles initially.
I'll be curious to see where they play him and how many places they play him in ST.
-
3 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:
A real example of what I think PFife is talking about (I think):
There are a LOT of people (including very smarts ones) who think that we are screwed whether we have a democracy, a dictatorship or something in between because of global warming. They think that neither party comes close to addressing the issue in a meaningful way. Why should they vote for either party? I'm not really with them because I don't know enough about it to know how bad it's going to get or how, so I vote for a democracy. However, if I shared their dire views, I sure wouldn't worry about our form of government over the world surviving.
I don't have any trouble understanding people who feel participating in the system is pointless. I don't agree with the sentiment but I understand it. And for those people, I can't say I see the point of voting 3rd party either (or voting at all FTM), not from any political angle in this case but just that it's a pure waste of their time to participate at all if they believe the system is irredeemable. Which ties back to the idea of casting a pointless vote as some kind of private protest or ego gratification. Maybe it makes someone feel like they have poked the system in eye, but the system doesn't feel a thing and doesn't care.
What the discussion here focuses on for me is the practical value of various voting strategies once one has decided they do care about the process/outcome.
-
-
29 minutes ago, NorthWoods said:
Jason Mackey
@JMackeyPG
·
1h
Some sad Pirates news to report: ElRoy Face passed away. He was 97. RIP Baron of the Bullpen.
If there were a baseball name HOF, he's in it.
-
54 minutes ago, Deleterious said:
But there is no reason he couldn't have put up a few threes in the Toronto game. They beat the Knicks by 38, fire up some shots.
this - for sure.
-
12 minutes ago, buddha said:
"if" is doing a lot of work there.
but he's athletic enough to think that if - there's that word again - anyone could have the coordination to learn how to shoot a basketball, its him.
I'd like to know what he does in practice. Sometimes with a super high energy player like Thompson they can hit shots in practice all day but under the pressure of game conditions there is too much adrenaline and they just can't marshall that instant of composure needed to get off an accurate shot. I'd rather it was a matter of form or footwork that he can practice his way through than that it's his style of play that make it hard for him.
-
34 minutes ago, chasfh said:
We were ranked 7th in runs scored before stumbling down the stretch. I don't think the problem was that the offense sucked. I think the problem was that a good offense stumbled down the stretch....
agree with all this. I don't think the Tigers are worried about the offense either. Most the key players are still either still approaching or in their primes - almost no-one on the downside other than maybe Javy and McKinstry and fair chance of adding at least one ++ hitter in McGonigle.
The flip side is that other than McGonigle and Anderson I don't see a lot of depth if guys start getting hurt. Two of the "insurance policies" from last season - Baddoo and Malloy are gone. But there are no perfect teams.
-
1
-
Investing
in Politics
Posted
Oh - I gave up dancing on the grave of Bitcoin some time ago - pretty much after it recovered after '22. But that's one party I'm not interested in joining either way.