Kavanaugh's finances

[Anonymous]

Early 30s, even worse! Delusional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a job that involved reviewing the financial disclosure statements of nominees in multiple (both R and D administrations), and, in the beginning, I was surprised by how little most nominees had in the way of savings. There were always the few very wealthy types, who'd been in the private sector a long time, or had family money, but the ones who'd been working on Capital Hill or other branches of government most of their career generally didn't have much.

This is not a new insight, but many people on this board have a warped view of how most Americans live.

I don't think so. Many people on this board understand that most people don't have savings, carry balances on their ccs, etc. But we all know what people are supposed to do, which, as you noted, many don't, including this Supreme Court nominee.

I'm so confused. If hes had a pension since 2006, why would someone put money into TSP after that? Also, how is that even fair that someone get a lifetime pension and still be allowed to contribute to tax deferred retirement accounts? Additionally I'm not a federal worker, and have to plan, but why would someone save aggressively if he had a lifetime job and lifetime pension? All one would need is insurance. He does have 500k in TSP, plus that pension, not sure why he's not supposed to spend his disposable income.
Is there some special virtue in hoarding money?

No but there’s value in building wealth. If he stays on his current track he will have made millions over his career and spent almost ALL of it. That’s a waste of a good salary. He doesn’t make a ton but enough to not be living paycheck to paycheck.

There’s a difference between hoarding money and living paycheck to paycheck.

Why is he supposed to build wealth? Me, as a someone who works in the private sector MUST build wealth in order to secure my future. I do not do this to be virtuous, I do this for my survival. That's the only reason I build wealth. I'm also 41. If today someone gave me a lifetime job with a lifetime pension, I dont see any value in building wealth. Heck, how much is that pension worth? 4M 5M? Despite my financially conservative nature, my 401k will never look like that.

I honestly dont understand the uproar over someone who is spending his money, has 500k saved, and who has a lifetime pension that only a fraction of the population could ever have.

Again, why should be build wealth given the security he has had as an appointee for over a decade? I truly dont fer it.

He should build wealth so he earns MORE money. A dollar invested should yield earnings. 200k isn’t a lot, especially considering his spending. He needs to make more money than 200k. One way to do this is to earn a higher salary/bonus. Another way is to invest.

Why does he need to earn more money and build wealth? He makes 250k and is free of debt. He also has 500k in a tax deferred account and on average given his position will retire at 79. I seriously do not understand why he MUST do this and why this has anything to do with the supreme court. Should every appointee be required to be an investor? What is the value to the American people in that?

Because he can’t live off of only 200k!!!!! He hasn’t been able to do so yet so he’s not going to be able to do so in the future.

What do you mean he can't live off 200k? Are we looking at the same article? He has no debt, 2 kids in private school. His mortgage is in good standing, he had 500k saved. He will be collecting at least 250k or more and will nearly die on the job. What am I missing? Why are you so worried about him? Why are you worrying about someone with his excellent financial picture? As a private sector employee this would be amazing if I had this and I'm speaking as a 40yr old who just broke 1M in retirement savings.

I'm not being an ass, I'm just baffled by these 20 pages of handwringing over this guy.

Why do you keep saying he has no debt? He does have debt -- a large outstanding mortgage (in his 50s). More importantly, he has refinanced his mortgage multiple times in order to pull cash out, and had $60-200k in credit card debt as of 1 year ago. He's clearly living beyond his means.

So now a supreme court nominee should not carry a mortgage? Or is it just people in their 50s who should not carry a mortgage?

The guy has 65k in his bank account, 500k in retirement, and carried debt that was paid off in a year. The article also states that some of that debt was because he paid for tix he was reimbursed for. He also purchased a home for 1.2M and now has a mortgage of 865K...so what? that is not a smoking gun of any sorts. That's a 4K mortgage for a guy working in DC. Do you expect him to live in Ashburn?

Oh and BTW, MANY of us who have owned homes in the last 12 years have refinanced multiple times. In 2006, the average mortgage rate was 6.4%. Rates in 2015 when he last refinanced were under 4%. I refinanced myself for just under 3%

Just curious, how do you know he pulled money out of his home? You do not need to refinance a home to pull money out. he's sitting on prime real estate, worth AT LEAST 2M I'm sure he could get a HELOC. I personally do not think that is a moral failing either, but I'm curious to know where you found that info. I cannot find that anywhere.

Again, why are you so worried about him? Personally, I do not spend time worrying about the financial soul of people who have had a lifetime job for over a decade and have a full lifetime pension, and a net worth of over 1M according to the article:

“At this time the Kavanaughs have no debt beyond their home mortgage,” Shah said.

He said that Kavanaugh has assets of nearly $1 million between the equity in his home and his retirement account.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a job that involved reviewing the financial disclosure statements of nominees in multiple (both R and D administrations), and, in the beginning, I was surprised by how little most nominees had in the way of savings. There were always the few very wealthy types, who'd been in the private sector a long time, or had family money, but the ones who'd been working on Capital Hill or other branches of government most of their career generally didn't have much.

This is not a new insight, but many people on this board have a warped view of how most Americans live.

I don't think so. Many people on this board understand that most people don't have savings, carry balances on their ccs, etc. But we all know what people are supposed to do, which, as you noted, many don't, including this Supreme Court nominee.

I'm so confused. If hes had a pension since 2006, why would someone put money into TSP after that? Also, how is that even fair that someone get a lifetime pension and still be allowed to contribute to tax deferred retirement accounts? Additionally I'm not a federal worker, and have to plan, but why would someone save aggressively if he had a lifetime job and lifetime pension? All one would need is insurance. He does have 500k in TSP, plus that pension, not sure why he's not supposed to spend his disposable income.
Is there some special virtue in hoarding money?

No but there’s value in building wealth. If he stays on his current track he will have made millions over his career and spent almost ALL of it. That’s a waste of a good salary. He doesn’t make a ton but enough to not be living paycheck to paycheck.

There’s a difference between hoarding money and living paycheck to paycheck.

Why is he supposed to build wealth? Me, as a someone who works in the private sector MUST build wealth in order to secure my future. I do not do this to be virtuous, I do this for my survival. That's the only reason I build wealth. I'm also 41. If today someone gave me a lifetime job with a lifetime pension, I dont see any value in building wealth. Heck, how much is that pension worth? 4M 5M? Despite my financially conservative nature, my 401k will never look like that.

I honestly dont understand the uproar over someone who is spending his money, has 500k saved, and who has a lifetime pension that only a fraction of the population could ever have.

Again, why should be build wealth given the security he has had as an appointee for over a decade? I truly dont fer it.

He should build wealth so he earns MORE money. A dollar invested should yield earnings. 200k isn’t a lot, especially considering his spending. He needs to make more money than 200k. One way to do this is to earn a higher salary/bonus. Another way is to invest.

Why does he need to earn more money and build wealth? He makes 250k and is free of debt. He also has 500k in a tax deferred account and on average given his position will retire at 79. I seriously do not understand why he MUST do this and why this has anything to do with the supreme court. Should every appointee be required to be an investor? What is the value to the American people in that?

Because he can’t live off of only 200k!!!!! He hasn’t been able to do so yet so he’s not going to be able to do so in the future.

What do you mean he can't live off 200k? Are we looking at the same article? He has no debt, 2 kids in private school. His mortgage is in good standing, he had 500k saved. He will be collecting at least 250k or more and will nearly die on the job. What am I missing? Why are you so worried about him? Why are you worrying about someone with his excellent financial picture? As a private sector employee this would be amazing if I had this and I'm speaking as a 40yr old who just broke 1M in retirement savings.

I'm not being an ass, I'm just baffled by these 20 pages of handwringing over this guy.

Because he’s earning 300k and has been racking up credit card debt and refinancing his home multiple times.

He’s in his 50s and has the same financial profile as someone in their early 30s (20-30 percent equity in home, 500k in retirement etc)

Ok, i have the answers to my questions. I'm not dealing with someone fully rooted in reality.

[Anonymous]

Just curious, how do you know he pulled money out of his home? You do not need to refinance a home to pull money out. he's sitting on prime real estate, worth AT LEAST 2M I'm sure he could get a HELOC. I personally do not think that is a moral failing either, but I'm curious to know where you found that info. I cannot find that anywhere.

That house in not in any way shape or form now worth “AT LEAST $2M.”
- lifelong resident of Chevy Chase with 13 years in real estate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why do you keep saying he has no debt? He does have debt -- a large outstanding mortgage (in his 50s). More importantly, he has refinanced his mortgage multiple times in order to pull cash out, and had $60-200k in credit card debt as of 1 year ago. He's clearly living beyond his means.

So now a supreme court nominee should not carry a mortgage? Or is it just people in their 50s who should not carry a mortgage?

The guy has 65k in his bank account, 500k in retirement, and carried debt that was paid off in a year. The article also states that some of that debt was because he paid for tix he was reimbursed for. He also purchased a home for 1.2M and now has a mortgage of 865K...so what? that is not a smoking gun of any sorts. That's a 4K mortgage for a guy working in DC. Do you expect him to live in Ashburn?

Oh and BTW, MANY of us who have owned homes in the last 12 years have refinanced multiple times. In 2006, the average mortgage rate was 6.4%. Rates in 2015 when he last refinanced were under 4%. I refinanced myself for just under 3%

Just curious, how do you know he pulled money out of his home? You do not need to refinance a home to pull money out. he's sitting on prime real estate, worth AT LEAST 2M I'm sure he could get a HELOC. I personally do not think that is a moral failing either, but I'm curious to know where you found that info. I cannot find that anywhere.

Again, why are you so worried about him? Personally, I do not spend time worrying about the financial soul of people who have had a lifetime job for over a decade and have a full lifetime pension, and a net worth of over 1M according to the article:

“At this time the Kavanaughs have no debt beyond their home mortgage,” Shah said.

He said that Kavanaugh has assets of nearly $1 million between the equity in his home and his retirement account.

We know he has been pulling money out of his house because he took out a 900k mortgage in 2006, it is 2018, and he owes $865 on his mortgage. If he did not take money out when he refinanced, it would be much lower.

He has no debt other than his mortgage as of last year, but he was carrying $60k-$200k (we only know ranges because that's what is reported for each card) every year prior for a decade, and his income didn't change last year, so someone who is not him paid that debt off. It's not a selling point that you're "debt free" if you didn't keep yourself out of debt, but rather got bailed out.

I'm not worried for him, he's the kind of guy who will always land on his feet. He's got rich parents (and probably in laws) and lots of connections. But what we can see from his financial disclosures is that he spends more than he earns, and just doesn't have to face to consequences for that behavior in a way that people situated differently would have to. So I'm not impressed by what we've learned about him, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why do you keep saying he has no debt? He does have debt -- a large outstanding mortgage (in his 50s). More importantly, he has refinanced his mortgage multiple times in order to pull cash out, and had $60-200k in credit card debt as of 1 year ago. He's clearly living beyond his means.

So now a supreme court nominee should not carry a mortgage? Or is it just people in their 50s who should not carry a mortgage?

The guy has 65k in his bank account, 500k in retirement, and carried debt that was paid off in a year. The article also states that some of that debt was because he paid for tix he was reimbursed for. He also purchased a home for 1.2M and now has a mortgage of 865K...so what? that is not a smoking gun of any sorts. That's a 4K mortgage for a guy working in DC. Do you expect him to live in Ashburn?

Oh and BTW, MANY of us who have owned homes in the last 12 years have refinanced multiple times. In 2006, the average mortgage rate was 6.4%. Rates in 2015 when he last refinanced were under 4%. I refinanced myself for just under 3%

Just curious, how do you know he pulled money out of his home? You do not need to refinance a home to pull money out. he's sitting on prime real estate, worth AT LEAST 2M I'm sure he could get a HELOC. I personally do not think that is a moral failing either, but I'm curious to know where you found that info. I cannot find that anywhere.

Again, why are you so worried about him? Personally, I do not spend time worrying about the financial soul of people who have had a lifetime job for over a decade and have a full lifetime pension, and a net worth of over 1M according to the article:

“At this time the Kavanaughs have no debt beyond their home mortgage,” Shah said.

He said that Kavanaugh has assets of nearly $1 million between the equity in his home and his retirement account.

We know he has been pulling money out of his house because he took out a 900k mortgage in 2006, it is 2018, and he owes $865 on his mortgage. If he did not take money out when he refinanced, it would be much lower.

He has no debt other than his mortgage as of last year, but he was carrying $60k-$200k (we only know ranges because that's what is reported for each card) every year prior for a decade, and his income didn't change last year, so someone who is not him paid that debt off. It's not a selling point that you're "debt free" if you didn't keep yourself out of debt, but rather got bailed out.

I'm not worried for him, he's the kind of guy who will always land on his feet. He's got rich parents (and probably in laws) and lots of connections. But what we can see from his financial disclosures is that he spends more than he earns, and just doesn't have to face to consequences for that behavior in a way that people situated differently would have to. So I'm not impressed by what we've learned about him, no.

Yes, not all of us have a lifetime job or lifetime pension. He is lucky. He does not need to build wealth. He has built in wealth due to hmthr nature of his job. Yes, someone brilliant who went to Yale and at a young age got in elite political circles is going to always land on their feet unless they do something very very dumb. Uncle Sam gave him a. Very solid golden parachute back in 2006.

What behavior should be face consequences for? What is the immoral behavior he should be punished for if he was not a highly educated politician, lawyer and judge? Not having a larger Vanguard account? Having nice furniture he paid off? Maybe the behavior of having a screened in deck?

Again, you think racking up debt and paying it off and having a net worth of 1M is a moral failing? What would make him more moral in your eyes? What is the $$ figure to reach full moral financial nirvana?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why do you keep saying he has no debt? He does have debt -- a large outstanding mortgage (in his 50s). More importantly, he has refinanced his mortgage multiple times in order to pull cash out, and had $60-200k in credit card debt as of 1 year ago. He's clearly living beyond his means.

So now a supreme court nominee should not carry a mortgage? Or is it just people in their 50s who should not carry a mortgage?

The guy has 65k in his bank account, 500k in retirement, and carried debt that was paid off in a year. The article also states that some of that debt was because he paid for tix he was reimbursed for. He also purchased a home for 1.2M and now has a mortgage of 865K...so what? that is not a smoking gun of any sorts. That's a 4K mortgage for a guy working in DC. Do you expect him to live in Ashburn?

Oh and BTW, MANY of us who have owned homes in the last 12 years have refinanced multiple times. In 2006, the average mortgage rate was 6.4%. Rates in 2015 when he last refinanced were under 4%. I refinanced myself for just under 3%

Just curious, how do you know he pulled money out of his home? You do not need to refinance a home to pull money out. he's sitting on prime real estate, worth AT LEAST 2M I'm sure he could get a HELOC. I personally do not think that is a moral failing either, but I'm curious to know where you found that info. I cannot find that anywhere.

Again, why are you so worried about him? Personally, I do not spend time worrying about the financial soul of people who have had a lifetime job for over a decade and have a full lifetime pension, and a net worth of over 1M according to the article:

“At this time the Kavanaughs have no debt beyond their home mortgage,” Shah said.

He said that Kavanaugh has assets of nearly $1 million between the equity in his home and his retirement account.

We know he has been pulling money out of his house because he took out a 900k mortgage in 2006, it is 2018, and he owes $865 on his mortgage. If he did not take money out when he refinanced, it would be much lower.

He has no debt other than his mortgage as of last year, but he was carrying $60k-$200k (we only know ranges because that's what is reported for each card) every year prior for a decade, and his income didn't change last year, so someone who is not him paid that debt off. It's not a selling point that you're "debt free" if you didn't keep yourself out of debt, but rather got bailed out.

I'm not worried for him, he's the kind of guy who will always land on his feet. He's got rich parents (and probably in laws) and lots of connections. But what we can see from his financial disclosures is that he spends more than he earns, and just doesn't have to face to consequences for that behavior in a way that people situated differently would have to. So I'm not impressed by what we've learned about him, no.

Yes, not all of us have a lifetime job or lifetime pension. He is lucky. He does not need to build wealth. He has built in wealth due to hmthr nature of his job. Yes, someone brilliant who went to Yale and at a young age got in elite political circles is going to always land on their feet unless they do something very very dumb. Uncle Sam gave him a. Very solid golden parachute back in 2006.

What behavior should be face consequences for? What is the immoral behavior he should be punished for if he was not a highly educated politician, lawyer and judge? Not having a larger Vanguard account? Having nice furniture he paid off? Maybe the behavior of having a screened in deck?

Again, you think racking up debt and paying it off and having a net worth of 1M is a moral failing? What would make him more moral in your eyes? What is the $$ figure to reach full moral financial nirvana?

You're missing the point, either intentionally or because I'm not making it clear. I'm not saying he "should face consequences" now, I'm saying he hasn't faced the consequences of living beyond his means in the past. If you rack up $200k in debt and then someone else pays it off, you aren't facing the consequences of having to tighten your belt, pay your debts, and learn to live within your means. No one is calling for him to be drawn and quartered, I'm saying he's gotten a pass that most people don't get because most of us don't have someone who will pay off high-four to low-six figures debt for us.

I'm not the same person who said he failed to build wealth. I don't care if he spends every dollar he brings in. But I do care that he spends more than he brings in, and gets bailed out. That's not good judgment.

Just so you know, the last two posts have come from me (starting from when I truncated the quote tree), but I'm not the person you've been going back and forth with before. I thought I could clear up some of your stated confusion about why people on the Money & Finances board were bothered by his disclosures, when you were saying you couldn't see the problem, he doesn't carry debt, what's the big deal. But if you don't really care to know what we're talking about, or are taking this as a partisan issue when it's being discussed as a financial issue, we don't have to discuss it further. I stay off the Politics board here because screaming at strangers who only came to scream at me, with neither of us listening to the other, is not my idea of a good time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why do you keep saying he has no debt? He does have debt -- a large outstanding mortgage (in his 50s). More importantly, he has refinanced his mortgage multiple times in order to pull cash out, and had $60-200k in credit card debt as of 1 year ago. He's clearly living beyond his means.

So now a supreme court nominee should not carry a mortgage? Or is it just people in their 50s who should not carry a mortgage?

The guy has 65k in his bank account, 500k in retirement, and carried debt that was paid off in a year. The article also states that some of that debt was because he paid for tix he was reimbursed for. He also purchased a home for 1.2M and now has a mortgage of 865K...so what? that is not a smoking gun of any sorts. That's a 4K mortgage for a guy working in DC. Do you expect him to live in Ashburn?

Oh and BTW, MANY of us who have owned homes in the last 12 years have refinanced multiple times. In 2006, the average mortgage rate was 6.4%. Rates in 2015 when he last refinanced were under 4%. I refinanced myself for just under 3%

Just curious, how do you know he pulled money out of his home? You do not need to refinance a home to pull money out. he's sitting on prime real estate, worth AT LEAST 2M I'm sure he could get a HELOC. I personally do not think that is a moral failing either, but I'm curious to know where you found that info. I cannot find that anywhere.

Again, why are you so worried about him? Personally, I do not spend time worrying about the financial soul of people who have had a lifetime job for over a decade and have a full lifetime pension, and a net worth of over 1M according to the article:

“At this time the Kavanaughs have no debt beyond their home mortgage,” Shah said.

He said that Kavanaugh has assets of nearly $1 million between the equity in his home and his retirement account.

We know he has been pulling money out of his house because he took out a 900k mortgage in 2006, it is 2018, and he owes $865 on his mortgage. If he did not take money out when he refinanced, it would be much lower.

He has no debt other than his mortgage as of last year, but he was carrying $60k-$200k (we only know ranges because that's what is reported for each card) every year prior for a decade, and his income didn't change last year, so someone who is not him paid that debt off. It's not a selling point that you're "debt free" if you didn't keep yourself out of debt, but rather got bailed out.

I'm not worried for him, he's the kind of guy who will always land on his feet. He's got rich parents (and probably in laws) and lots of connections. But what we can see from his financial disclosures is that he spends more than he earns, and just doesn't have to face to consequences for that behavior in a way that people situated differently would have to. So I'm not impressed by what we've learned about him, no.

Yes, not all of us have a lifetime job or lifetime pension. He is lucky. He does not need to build wealth. He has built in wealth due to hmthr nature of his job. Yes, someone brilliant who went to Yale and at a young age got in elite political circles is going to always land on their feet unless they do something very very dumb. Uncle Sam gave him a. Very solid golden parachute back in 2006.

What behavior should be face consequences for? What is the immoral behavior he should be punished for if he was not a highly educated politician, lawyer and judge? Not having a larger Vanguard account? Having nice furniture he paid off? Maybe the behavior of having a screened in deck?

Again, you think racking up debt and paying it off and having a net worth of 1M is a moral failing? What would make him more moral in your eyes? What is the $$ figure to reach full moral financial nirvana?

You're missing the point, either intentionally or because I'm not making it clear. I'm not saying he "should face consequences" now, I'm saying he hasn't faced the consequences of living beyond his means in the past. If you rack up $200k in debt and then someone else pays it off, you aren't facing the consequences of having to tighten your belt, pay your debts, and learn to live within your means. No one is calling for him to be drawn and quartered, I'm saying he's gotten a pass that most people don't get because most of us don't have someone who will pay off high-four to low-six figures debt for us.

I'm not the same person who said he failed to build wealth. I don't care if he spends every dollar he brings in. But I do care that he spends more than he brings in, and gets bailed out. That's not good judgment.

Just so you know, the last two posts have come from me (starting from when I truncated the quote tree), but I'm not the person you've been going back and forth with before. I thought I could clear up some of your stated confusion about why people on the Money & Finances board were bothered by his disclosures, when you were saying you couldn't see the problem, he doesn't carry debt, what's the big deal. But if you don't really care to know what we're talking about, or are taking this as a partisan issue when it's being discussed as a financial issue, we don't have to discuss it further. I stay off the Politics board here because screaming at strangers who only came to scream at me, with neither of us listening to the other, is not my idea of a good time.

How do you know hes getting bailed out by someone? Serious question. We had a bunch of cash on the the sidelines a few times. Opened multiple credit cards for points, racked up 90k in debt, held it for the interest free portion and then paid it off in one big chunk.

Is this an assumption you are making that someone bailed him out or was there something on his tax return in regards to gift money?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why do you keep saying he has no debt? He does have debt -- a large outstanding mortgage (in his 50s). More importantly, he has refinanced his mortgage multiple times in order to pull cash out, and had $60-200k in credit card debt as of 1 year ago. He's clearly living beyond his means.

So now a supreme court nominee should not carry a mortgage? Or is it just people in their 50s who should not carry a mortgage?

The guy has 65k in his bank account, 500k in retirement, and carried debt that was paid off in a year. The article also states that some of that debt was because he paid for tix he was reimbursed for. He also purchased a home for 1.2M and now has a mortgage of 865K...so what? that is not a smoking gun of any sorts. That's a 4K mortgage for a guy working in DC. Do you expect him to live in Ashburn?

Oh and BTW, MANY of us who have owned homes in the last 12 years have refinanced multiple times. In 2006, the average mortgage rate was 6.4%. Rates in 2015 when he last refinanced were under 4%. I refinanced myself for just under 3%

Just curious, how do you know he pulled money out of his home? You do not need to refinance a home to pull money out. he's sitting on prime real estate, worth AT LEAST 2M I'm sure he could get a HELOC. I personally do not think that is a moral failing either, but I'm curious to know where you found that info. I cannot find that anywhere.

Again, why are you so worried about him? Personally, I do not spend time worrying about the financial soul of people who have had a lifetime job for over a decade and have a full lifetime pension, and a net worth of over 1M according to the article:

“At this time the Kavanaughs have no debt beyond their home mortgage,” Shah said.

He said that Kavanaugh has assets of nearly $1 million between the equity in his home and his retirement account.

We know he has been pulling money out of his house because he took out a 900k mortgage in 2006, it is 2018, and he owes $865 on his mortgage. If he did not take money out when he refinanced, it would be much lower.

He has no debt other than his mortgage as of last year, but he was carrying $60k-$200k (we only know ranges because that's what is reported for each card) every year prior for a decade, and his income didn't change last year, so someone who is not him paid that debt off. It's not a selling point that you're "debt free" if you didn't keep yourself out of debt, but rather got bailed out.

I'm not worried for him, he's the kind of guy who will always land on his feet. He's got rich parents (and probably in laws) and lots of connections. But what we can see from his financial disclosures is that he spends more than he earns, and just doesn't have to face to consequences for that behavior in a way that people situated differently would have to. So I'm not impressed by what we've learned about him, no.

Yes, not all of us have a lifetime job or lifetime pension. He is lucky. He does not need to build wealth. He has built in wealth due to hmthr nature of his job. Yes, someone brilliant who went to Yale and at a young age got in elite political circles is going to always land on their feet unless they do something very very dumb. Uncle Sam gave him a. Very solid golden parachute back in 2006.

What behavior should be face consequences for? What is the immoral behavior he should be punished for if he was not a highly educated politician, lawyer and judge? Not having a larger Vanguard account? Having nice furniture he paid off? Maybe the behavior of having a screened in deck?

Again, you think racking up debt and paying it off and having a net worth of 1M is a moral failing? What would make him more moral in your eyes? What is the $$ figure to reach full moral financial nirvana?

You're missing the point, either intentionally or because I'm not making it clear. I'm not saying he "should face consequences" now, I'm saying he hasn't faced the consequences of living beyond his means in the past. If you rack up $200k in debt and then someone else pays it off, you aren't facing the consequences of having to tighten your belt, pay your debts, and learn to live within your means. No one is calling for him to be drawn and quartered, I'm saying he's gotten a pass that most people don't get because most of us don't have someone who will pay off high-four to low-six figures debt for us.

I'm not the same person who said he failed to build wealth. I don't care if he spends every dollar he brings in. But I do care that he spends more than he brings in, and gets bailed out. That's not good judgment.

Just so you know, the last two posts have come from me (starting from when I truncated the quote tree), but I'm not the person you've been going back and forth with before. I thought I could clear up some of your stated confusion about why people on the Money & Finances board were bothered by his disclosures, when you were saying you couldn't see the problem, he doesn't carry debt, what's the big deal. But if you don't really care to know what we're talking about, or are taking this as a partisan issue when it's being discussed as a financial issue, we don't have to discuss it further. I stay off the Politics board here because screaming at strangers who only came to scream at me, with neither of us listening to the other, is not my idea of a good time.

How do you know hes getting bailed out by someone? Serious question. We had a bunch of cash on the the sidelines a few times. Opened multiple credit cards for points, racked up 90k in debt, held it for the interest free portion and then paid it off in one big chunk.

Is this an assumption you are making that someone bailed him out or was there something on his tax return in regards to gift money?

It is an assumption, based on the fact that his CC debt held steady for 10 years, and then disappeared in one. The financial disclosures show cash positions as well, and when he had the debt it outweighed his cash according to the WaPo article. His income did not change in the year the debt disappeared, to account for suddenly paying off $200k in CC debt. But if one of his refinances was in 2015 or 2016, I guess he could have technically bailed himself out. If that's what happened it is slightly better than the bank of Mom & Dad, but still doesn't show any financial savvy IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why do you keep saying he has no debt? He does have debt -- a large outstanding mortgage (in his 50s). More importantly, he has refinanced his mortgage multiple times in order to pull cash out, and had $60-200k in credit card debt as of 1 year ago. He's clearly living beyond his means.

So now a supreme court nominee should not carry a mortgage? Or is it just people in their 50s who should not carry a mortgage?

The guy has 65k in his bank account, 500k in retirement, and carried debt that was paid off in a year. The article also states that some of that debt was because he paid for tix he was reimbursed for. He also purchased a home for 1.2M and now has a mortgage of 865K...so what? that is not a smoking gun of any sorts. That's a 4K mortgage for a guy working in DC. Do you expect him to live in Ashburn?

Oh and BTW, MANY of us who have owned homes in the last 12 years have refinanced multiple times. In 2006, the average mortgage rate was 6.4%. Rates in 2015 when he last refinanced were under 4%. I refinanced myself for just under 3%

Just curious, how do you know he pulled money out of his home? You do not need to refinance a home to pull money out. he's sitting on prime real estate, worth AT LEAST 2M I'm sure he could get a HELOC. I personally do not think that is a moral failing either, but I'm curious to know where you found that info. I cannot find that anywhere.

Again, why are you so worried about him? Personally, I do not spend time worrying about the financial soul of people who have had a lifetime job for over a decade and have a full lifetime pension, and a net worth of over 1M according to the article:

“At this time the Kavanaughs have no debt beyond their home mortgage,” Shah said.

He said that Kavanaugh has assets of nearly $1 million between the equity in his home and his retirement account.

We know he has been pulling money out of his house because he took out a 900k mortgage in 2006, it is 2018, and he owes $865 on his mortgage. If he did not take money out when he refinanced, it would be much lower.

He has no debt other than his mortgage as of last year, but he was carrying $60k-$200k (we only know ranges because that's what is reported for each card) every year prior for a decade, and his income didn't change last year, so someone who is not him paid that debt off. It's not a selling point that you're "debt free" if you didn't keep yourself out of debt, but rather got bailed out.

I'm not worried for him, he's the kind of guy who will always land on his feet. He's got rich parents (and probably in laws) and lots of connections. But what we can see from his financial disclosures is that he spends more than he earns, and just doesn't have to face to consequences for that behavior in a way that people situated differently would have to. So I'm not impressed by what we've learned about him, no.

Yes, not all of us have a lifetime job or lifetime pension. He is lucky. He does not need to build wealth. He has built in wealth due to hmthr nature of his job. Yes, someone brilliant who went to Yale and at a young age got in elite political circles is going to always land on their feet unless they do something very very dumb. Uncle Sam gave him a. Very solid golden parachute back in 2006.

What behavior should be face consequences for? What is the immoral behavior he should be punished for if he was not a highly educated politician, lawyer and judge? Not having a larger Vanguard account? Having nice furniture he paid off? Maybe the behavior of having a screened in deck?

Again, you think racking up debt and paying it off and having a net worth of 1M is a moral failing? What would make him more moral in your eyes? What is the $$ figure to reach full moral financial nirvana?

You're missing the point, either intentionally or because I'm not making it clear. I'm not saying he "should face consequences" now, I'm saying he hasn't faced the consequences of living beyond his means in the past. If you rack up $200k in debt and then someone else pays it off, you aren't facing the consequences of having to tighten your belt, pay your debts, and learn to live within your means. No one is calling for him to be drawn and quartered, I'm saying he's gotten a pass that most people don't get because most of us don't have someone who will pay off high-four to low-six figures debt for us.

I'm not the same person who said he failed to build wealth. I don't care if he spends every dollar he brings in. But I do care that he spends more than he brings in, and gets bailed out. That's not good judgment.

Just so you know, the last two posts have come from me (starting from when I truncated the quote tree), but I'm not the person you've been going back and forth with before. I thought I could clear up some of your stated confusion about why people on the Money & Finances board were bothered by his disclosures, when you were saying you couldn't see the problem, he doesn't carry debt, what's the big deal. But if you don't really care to know what we're talking about, or are taking this as a partisan issue when it's being discussed as a financial issue, we don't have to discuss it further. I stay off the Politics board here because screaming at strangers who only came to scream at me, with neither of us listening to the other, is not my idea of a good time.

How do you know hes getting bailed out by someone? Serious question. We had a bunch of cash on the the sidelines a few times. Opened multiple credit cards for points, racked up 90k in debt, held it for the interest free portion and then paid it off in one big chunk.

Is this an assumption you are making that someone bailed him out or was there something on his tax return in regards to gift money?

It is an assumption, based on the fact that his CC debt held steady for 10 years, and then disappeared in one. The financial disclosures show cash positions as well, and when he had the debt it outweighed his cash according to the WaPo article. His income did not change in the year the debt disappeared, to account for suddenly paying off $200k in CC debt. But if one of his refinances was in 2015 or 2016, I guess he could have technically bailed himself out. If that's what happened it is slightly better than the bank of Mom & Dad, but still doesn't show any financial savvy IMO.

Wouldnt his taxes show a 200k gift? I'd think that would be an important disclosure for someone in his position. No?

Sounds like nobody has enough hard information to make their way out of a paper bag on here.

[Anonymous]

His parents are rich. He is trying to play down his dad’s lobbying and the huge (multi million) deferred compensation he got, but he doesn’t have to save anything or ever worry because daddy will come in and save him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why do you keep saying he has no debt? He does have debt -- a large outstanding mortgage (in his 50s). More importantly, he has refinanced his mortgage multiple times in order to pull cash out, and had $60-200k in credit card debt as of 1 year ago. He's clearly living beyond his means.

So now a supreme court nominee should not carry a mortgage? Or is it just people in their 50s who should not carry a mortgage?

The guy has 65k in his bank account, 500k in retirement, and carried debt that was paid off in a year. The article also states that some of that debt was because he paid for tix he was reimbursed for. He also purchased a home for 1.2M and now has a mortgage of 865K...so what? that is not a smoking gun of any sorts. That's a 4K mortgage for a guy working in DC. Do you expect him to live in Ashburn?

Oh and BTW, MANY of us who have owned homes in the last 12 years have refinanced multiple times. In 2006, the average mortgage rate was 6.4%. Rates in 2015 when he last refinanced were under 4%. I refinanced myself for just under 3%

Just curious, how do you know he pulled money out of his home? You do not need to refinance a home to pull money out. he's sitting on prime real estate, worth AT LEAST 2M I'm sure he could get a HELOC. I personally do not think that is a moral failing either, but I'm curious to know where you found that info. I cannot find that anywhere.

Again, why are you so worried about him? Personally, I do not spend time worrying about the financial soul of people who have had a lifetime job for over a decade and have a full lifetime pension, and a net worth of over 1M according to the article:

“At this time the Kavanaughs have no debt beyond their home mortgage,” Shah said.

He said that Kavanaugh has assets of nearly $1 million between the equity in his home and his retirement account.

We know he has been pulling money out of his house because he took out a 900k mortgage in 2006, it is 2018, and he owes $865 on his mortgage. If he did not take money out when he refinanced, it would be much lower.

He has no debt other than his mortgage as of last year, but he was carrying $60k-$200k (we only know ranges because that's what is reported for each card) every year prior for a decade, and his income didn't change last year, so someone who is not him paid that debt off. It's not a selling point that you're "debt free" if you didn't keep yourself out of debt, but rather got bailed out.

I'm not worried for him, he's the kind of guy who will always land on his feet. He's got rich parents (and probably in laws) and lots of connections. But what we can see from his financial disclosures is that he spends more than he earns, and just doesn't have to face to consequences for that behavior in a way that people situated differently would have to. So I'm not impressed by what we've learned about him, no.

Yes, not all of us have a lifetime job or lifetime pension. He is lucky. He does not need to build wealth. He has built in wealth due to hmthr nature of his job. Yes, someone brilliant who went to Yale and at a young age got in elite political circles is going to always land on their feet unless they do something very very dumb. Uncle Sam gave him a. Very solid golden parachute back in 2006.

What behavior should be face consequences for? What is the immoral behavior he should be punished for if he was not a highly educated politician, lawyer and judge? Not having a larger Vanguard account? Having nice furniture he paid off? Maybe the behavior of having a screened in deck?

Again, you think racking up debt and paying it off and having a net worth of 1M is a moral failing? What would make him more moral in your eyes? What is the $$ figure to reach full moral financial nirvana?

You're missing the point, either intentionally or because I'm not making it clear. I'm not saying he "should face consequences" now, I'm saying he hasn't faced the consequences of living beyond his means in the past. If you rack up $200k in debt and then someone else pays it off, you aren't facing the consequences of having to tighten your belt, pay your debts, and learn to live within your means. No one is calling for him to be drawn and quartered, I'm saying he's gotten a pass that most people don't get because most of us don't have someone who will pay off high-four to low-six figures debt for us.

I'm not the same person who said he failed to build wealth. I don't care if he spends every dollar he brings in. But I do care that he spends more than he brings in, and gets bailed out. That's not good judgment.

Just so you know, the last two posts have come from me (starting from when I truncated the quote tree), but I'm not the person you've been going back and forth with before. I thought I could clear up some of your stated confusion about why people on the Money & Finances board were bothered by his disclosures, when you were saying you couldn't see the problem, he doesn't carry debt, what's the big deal. But if you don't really care to know what we're talking about, or are taking this as a partisan issue when it's being discussed as a financial issue, we don't have to discuss it further. I stay off the Politics board here because screaming at strangers who only came to scream at me, with neither of us listening to the other, is not my idea of a good time.

How do you know hes getting bailed out by someone? Serious question. We had a bunch of cash on the the sidelines a few times. Opened multiple credit cards for points, racked up 90k in debt, held it for the interest free portion and then paid it off in one big chunk.

Is this an assumption you are making that someone bailed him out or was there something on his tax return in regards to gift money?

It is an assumption, based on the fact that his CC debt held steady for 10 years, and then disappeared in one. The financial disclosures show cash positions as well, and when he had the debt it outweighed his cash according to the WaPo article. His income did not change in the year the debt disappeared, to account for suddenly paying off $200k in CC debt. But if one of his refinances was in 2015 or 2016, I guess he could have technically bailed himself out. If that's what happened it is slightly better than the bank of Mom & Dad, but still doesn't show any financial savvy IMO.

Wouldnt his taxes show a 200k gift? I'd think that would be an important disclosure for someone in his position. No?

Sounds like nobody has enough hard information to make their way out of a paper bag on here.

No. Recipient of gift does nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:His parents are rich. He is trying to play down his dad’s lobbying and the huge (multi million) deferred compensation he got, but he doesn’t have to save anything or ever worry because daddy will come in and save him.

He doesn't even have to live within $300k. His daddy will pay off his credit cards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His parents are rich. He is trying to play down his dad’s lobbying and the huge (multi million) deferred compensation he got, but he doesn’t have to save anything or ever worry because daddy will come in and save him.

He doesn't even have to live within $300k. His daddy will pay off his credit cards.

And as an only child, he will get all of their $

[Anonymous]

Y’all are sad.