Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

Well you see conservatives got something out of it so-

borkencode posted:

Hollismason posted:

I would call being able to export oil something we banned for over 40 years a big huge loving win plus all the other tax cuts buried in there for corporations.

moller posted:

Joementum posted:

The big "get" for the Republicans in this* is the continued moratorium on the medical device tax and Cadillac healthcare plan tax. These are both taxes that Democrats overwhelmingly want to repeal when voted on as individual items (as was done during the Senate budget reconciliation bill last week), but continue on the books because they are needed in order to say that Obamacare is deficit neutral.


* eta: And lifting the oil export ban, obviously.

Joementum posted:

Those dastardly Democrats, selling out America by making enhancements of the EITC and the child tax credit permanent!

Tatum Girlparts posted:

If there's one group of fat cats that need to pay more it's those loving middle class families with kids. Disgusting that once again the cowardly democrats sell the real working man out imo.

Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

>plants Donald "I'm starting to wonder myself whether he was born in this country" Trump 2016 sign in yard

Tatum Girlparts posted:

Look if one person gets something then everyone should burn to death. That's what socialism is right, I think that's what the wikipedia page said but I got bored half in.

Hollismason posted:

The whole loving reason we instituted the export ban in the first place was to make it so our economy didn't seesaw with oil prices. Our oil production is actually decreasing every year.

Enjoy increased gas prices that will strangle the economy probably. We won't actually see economic effect probably in the next year. It'll be during Hillary's term that the economy probably chokes to death because of it.

Hollismason posted:

The whole loving reason we instituted the export ban in the first place was to make it so our economy didn't seesaw with oil prices. Our oil production is actually decreasing every year.

Enjoy increased gas prices that will strangle the economy probably. We won't actually see economic effect probably in the next year. It'll be during Hillary's term that the economy probably chokes to death because of it.

CroatianAlzheimers posted:

Hahahahahahaha, you really think Labor means anything in this godforsaken state anymore? It amazes me how quickly the assholes around here forget what their fathers fought and died for. Michiganders are loving infuriating, this whole state is infuriating, and I'd leave in a heartbeat if I could convince my wife (a Michigan native and UofM alum) to do so.

Killer robot posted:

Given that oil was a globalized commodity 40 years ago and is even more so today, is allowing or banning exports of it more than a symbolic gesture in any event? I haven't seen an argument one way or the other that didn't feel like either a gross misunderstanding of the oil market or else a thin veneer over "to stick it to those other guys."

Hollismason posted:

If you thought we drilled to much now wait a year. Also the big thing people miss is that with us exporting oil it will go to refineries that probably don't give a gently caress about enviromental issues at all so more green house gases.

Hollismason posted:

The whole loving reason we instituted the export ban in the first place was to make it so our economy didn't seesaw with oil prices. Our oil production is actually decreasing every year.

Enjoy increased gas prices that will strangle the economy probably. We won't actually see economic effect probably in the next year. It'll be during Hillary's term that the economy probably chokes to death because of it.

Gail Wynand posted:

I love the "airbnb hosts are all slumlords" chat that always comes up here, I've stayed in maybe 10 airbnb's and of that number only two were not owner occupied

Trabisnikof posted:

Only 20% of the time I used this service they were making GBS threads on the community, jeez I don't get the complaints!

Fried Chicken posted:

Here is your reason to despair for the future tonight

At this evening's debate, Donald Trump proposed cracking down on "the Inter Net" to deal with Isis recruitment. The word "penetrate" was used many times, something I never want to heart said from a Republican mouth again. But the point is that, since ISIS uses "the Inter Net" to recruit and individuals use it to self radicalize, he wants to shut the whole thing down.

Now as plans go this one is obviously flaming batshit insane. But here is my question:

What other Republican offered a plan to address the proximate cause of terrorism?

You have Donald Trump identifying the issue and offering this nuttiness to deal with it. The others don't even recognize that the issue exists, and instead mumble platitude about "strength" "toughness" and carpet bombing children.

Donald Trump, by sheer virtue of recognizing a problem and having a (very bad) solution to it is immediately taking the whole thing more seriously than anyone else on stage tonight was.

Gail Wynand posted:

I don't really get how it's "making GBS threads on the community" to rent out the extra unit in your building but ok

The other one was a vacation home in the middle of the Malaysian countryside, not exactly a major hotbed of gentrification

Hollismason posted:

If we start exporting oil then companies will probably start shipping to offshore refineries or other areas that have lower enviromental standards.

Right now the Refineries in the United States that work with the oil that is on the export ban provide many middle class jobs. We risk losing these jobs if refining goes over seas.

This is a pretty good explanation:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy/2015/0513/What-happens-if-we-scrap-the-US-oil-exports-ban

Basically, we lose jobs, oil prices go up etc..

Gail Wynand posted:

I don't really get how it's "making GBS threads on the community" to rent out the extra unit in your building but ok

The other one was a vacation home in the middle of the Malaysian countryside, not exactly a major hotbed of gentrification

Trabisnikof posted:

Usually it is illegal to run a hotel out of an apartment or house hth

Airbnb makes it as hard as they can for regulators to catch illegal units and makes it equally hard for tax collectors to collect all legal hotel etc taxes owed.

Gail Wynand posted:

Most major cities have passed ordinances governing Airbnb now so not really.

Also Airbnb collects hotel tax in many jurisdictions. Have you ever used Airbnb?

quote:

The attorney general’s report, which analyzed data on Airbnb listings from January 2010 to June 2014, obtained through a subpoena, found that the 6% of commercial hosts on Airbnb offered 36% of all private listings and collected 37% of all host revenue. (A “private listing” is either an entire space, or a private room in a rental where the host may or may not be there during the stay.) The top 12 commercial users accepted 14,655 private rentals for more than $24.2 million—about 5% of host revenue—during the same period.

The attorney general also found that the vast majority of Airbnb bookings were illegal, as state law prohibits renting out a space for less than 30 days unless the renter is also present during that time. Airbnb’s data also appears to support this. Across all of New York City, the company says 53% of hosts listing entire spaces rent them for between one and 30 days a year. Another 18% do so for 31 to 60 days. (It seems safe to assume that those won’t always be two consecutive 30-day chunks.) A spokesman for Airbnb says the company is committed to “working with policymakers and elected officials on clear, fair rules for home sharing” and “strongly oppose(s) large-scale speculators who turn dozens of apartments into illegal hotel rooms.”
The problem is that Airbnb hasn’t yet come up with a solution for identifying and removing these types of hosts from its platform, nor did it reveal their identities in the New York City data. That’s why New York City councilmember Helen Rosenthal, an outspoken critic of Airbnb, feels as though the community compact is “rhetoric with no substance behind it.”

“My hope was that they would give us the names and addresses of those individuals that are breaking the law,” Rosenthal tells me by phone. “And we did specifically talk about this—I asked them to take the most egregious lawbreakers and give us their names and addresses so the city enforcement agents could enforce the law.” Instead, Rosenthal says she saw the same tables and columns of anonymized raw data that I did in Civic Hall, just one day earlier. Rosenthal is among the members of City Council sponsoring legislation that would dramatically increase fines on New Yorkers who illegally rent out their dwellings.
“When I met with Chris Lehane (Airbnb’s recently appointed head of policy and a former Bill Clinton aide), he said flat out that he did not agree with our laws,” Rosenthal says. “I did not realize that a $25 billion company can just decide which laws they do and do not agree with.”

(http://qz.com/571165/airbnb-is-sharing-more-data-but-in-a-really-convoluted-way/)

shrike82 posted:

there's talk that the FAA will require any drone owner to register with them

quote:

Q. Do I have to register a paper airplane, or a toy balloon or Frisbee?
A. No. Even if these things could be considered "drones" or "unmanned aircraft" and met the minimum weight threshold of 250 gm/0.55 lb., the registration rules also require that they be a part of an "unmanned aircraft system." An "unmanned aircraft system" includes the communication links and components that control the small unmanned aircraft along with all of the other elements needed to safely operate the drone. Paper airplanes, toy balloons, Frisbees, and similar items are not connected to such control system.