|
Should troll Fancy Pelosi be allowed to stay? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
160 | 32.92% |
| No |
|
326 | 67.08% |
| Total: | 486 votes | ||
|
Yes of course giving other countries vaccines is politics, everything is politics. It's actually decent as far as politics goes. Though I guess on the basis that it probably increases US soft power and that's a bad thing you could say it's bad.
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:57 |
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:And this is wrong...why? Businesses do this poo poo all the time. Banks do this poo poo all the time. Why are individuals being held to a different standard? Because they don't have any power. Banks identified a risk and then mitigate that risk by forcing their own customer to pay extra for insurance on the risk. The only thing that really pisses me off about PMI is that the bank is the sole beneficiary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 22:00
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:both 1 and 2 are already the case in many states - state funding generally equals local funding for schools, and most states have a homestead exemption of some kind for primary residence. 3 is a good idea but runs into compliance and regulatory issues, namely identifying which houses people live in or what the otherwise intended use of a residence is. it requires more information that governments typically collect I was going to ask VikingofRock for a source on property taxes being a barrier to home ownership for low income individuals. I feel like there's a lot of other barriers to home ownership before that, before even taking homestead exemptions into account.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 22:03
|
|
|
LloydDobler posted:Because they don't have any power. Banks identified a risk and then mitigate that risk by forcing their own customer to pay extra for insurance on the risk. The bank doesn't actually collect the PMI. The bank pays the PMI directly to an insurance company and (usually) adds the charge to your mortgage payment. You can also pay a one-time PMI payment, but these are less popular because they make the upfront closing costs much larger.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 22:04
|
|
|
property taxes aren't really a barrier to homeownership but if the value of your home increases due to gentrification or just general number-up then your appraisal and thus tax burden can increase as well. this is really a problem for retired people on fixed incomes who bought the house in 1971 or whatever and really can't afford to move and may be in trouble if their property tax bill goes from $1200 to $4000
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 22:06
|
|
|
LloydDobler posted:Because they don't have any power. Banks identified a risk and then mitigate that risk by forcing their own customer to pay extra for insurance on the risk. it seems like it is a tad risky to sell insurance to someone that pays them if they stop paying their debts it seems like they might stop paying their debts and then collect on it (this has actually happened with hedge funds)
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 22:06
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:That's bullshit. I'm in CA, and the way I was told it worked when I was going through the process is that the seller had to give all prospective buyers a copy of all reports, regardless of which buyer paid. Might be different where I am as I'm not in CA (DC Metro area). Still though, apparently the only issue found in that report that ours didn't find was an issue with the HVAC needed to be replaced. The seller replaced it before we even got our offer in, let alone our inspection so it was trivial in the end. We also ended up talking to the tenant who backed out of the offer and asked him straight up what issues he found or if he had anything he thought we should know. Everything he mentioned was stuff that came up in our inspection report and were trivial issues. So it worked out. Still, I wouldn't buy a house without an inspection. I'm just glad my wife and I managed to buy one before things got too stupid around here with no inspection bids and such.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 22:14
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:property taxes aren't really a barrier to homeownership but if the value of your home increases due to gentrification or just general number-up then your appraisal and thus tax burden can increase as well. this is really a problem for retired people on fixed incomes who bought the house in 1971 or whatever and really can't afford to move and may be in trouble if their property tax bill goes from $1200 to $4000
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 22:15
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:The last property tax bill was like $100. What I've heard about places like NJ it could be more than your mortgage and that's pretty bonkers. I don't get how the only form of wealth tax that's somehow acceptable is literally on the only thing that separates you from living on the street. its remarkably hard to hide a plot of land from the tax inspector compared to other forms of more portable wealth
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 22:16
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I don't get how the only form of wealth tax that's somehow acceptable is literally on the only thing that separates you from living on the street. this is also a feature of a lot of homestead exemptions, some portion of your home equity is shielded from creditors in bankruptcy so you can't be made homeless unless you really gently caress up
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 22:19
|
|
|
If state legislatures try to overturn a midterm or general election result in favor of their defeated candidate, wouldn't the courts strike them down in most cases and/or risk the national guard sent in?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 22:26
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:If state legislatures try to overturn a midterm or general election result in favor of their defeated candidate, wouldn't the courts strike them down in most cases and/or risk the national guard sent in?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 22:29
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:I'm definitely going to start calling the filibuster "the other peculiar institution" That's pretty good actually.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 22:38
|
|
|
TheOneAndOnlyT posted:Nobody loving knows, stop asking D&D to predict the future to ease your anxiety.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 22:44
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:If state legislatures try to overturn a midterm or general election result in favor of their defeated candidate, wouldn't the courts strike them down in most cases and/or risk the national guard sent in? Justice Breyer is staying on the court to save us having to worry about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 22:45
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:If state legislatures try to overturn a midterm or general election result in favor of their defeated candidate, wouldn't the courts strike them down in most cases and/or risk the national guard sent in? The only real limitation is that the Presidential Election Day Act of 1845 requires the states to choose their electors on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November of an election year. All of the states currently have laws that establish a popular vote to award all of their electors this way (with some small congressional district deviations for Nebraska and Maine). It therefore shouldn't be possible for a state legislature to just decide after the fact that they would like to appoint different electors. Courts would strike that down. But what they could do is create enough chaos that they make the election day outcome "uncertain", and the legislature then decides to appoint electors directly to resolve the problems (which they almost certainly purposefully created). Courts might buy that. Republican legislatures in states that narrowly went for Biden were caught off guard and not prepared to attempt this last time, but next time they likely will be. The other option for a Republican legislature in a purple or slightly bluish state is to cancel the presidential popular vote and appoint electors themselves on election day. This would be accepted by courts, because the Constitution is crystal clear that they can do this, if they want.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 23:10
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:State legislatures are constitutionally allowed to choose their electors however they see fit. They don't need to have a popular vote for president at all. They could just appoint whichever electors they want. (Not that I think there will be any armed insurrections over the 2024 elections) Edit: If the presidential popular vote is cancelled wouldn't that mean the GOP wins by default no matter how big a win Biden/Harris gets in 2024? Grouchio fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Jun 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 23:24
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:So what can Biden's admin, the feds, or anyone do to prevent a GOP state legislature from denying a dem senator/governor his rightful seat voted on by the people? At that point we're in civil war territory. No legislation yet proposed would forestall that. It's the kind of thought that can render you useless, so I try to avoid it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 23:39
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:So what can Biden's admin, the feds, or anyone do to prevent a GOP state legislature from denying a dem senator/governor his rightful seat voted on by the people? Saying "but I just want to know what the options are" does not hide the fact that you are making this post because you are (understandably) anxious about the future and want reassurance. D&D cannot provide it because we cannot predict the future.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 23:40
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:both 1 and 2 are already the case in many states - state funding generally equals local funding for schools, and most states have a homestead exemption of some kind for primary residence. 3 is a good idea but runs into compliance and regulatory issues, namely identifying which houses people live in or what the otherwise intended use of a residence is. it requires more information that governments typically collect That's good to know. Honestly my proposal is mostly for CA since that's the state I know best. Kalit posted:I was going to ask VikingofRock for a source on property taxes being a barrier to home ownership for low income individuals. I feel like there's a lot of other barriers to home ownership before that, before even taking homestead exemptions into account. There are of course other barriers to home ownership, especially for low-income individuals. I don't have any good sources on this, but anecdotally my wife and I were looking at buying in CA, and were pretty surprised at how much property taxes were in addition to the mortgage on a million dollar house (which is a pretty typical price in coastal CA). Of course, for us, the housing availability and down payment were bigger obstacles, but my thinking is that if you can get wall street out of home ownership, both of those obstacles should lessen significantly as well. I admit I probably have a pretty distorted view on this because of CA's uniquely terrible housing situation, especially because e.g. my wife and I don't have the same boomer property tax subsidy that prop 13 gives our parents.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 23:43
|
|
|
TheOneAndOnlyT posted:I say this with complete seriousness and not as a dismissal: We do not know and we will have no way of knowing until it happens. What the Biden admin can do will depend entirely on the "legal" route and justification the state chooses to use to throw out an election. We cannot predict what it will be, if it even happens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 23:44
|
|
|
If it makes you feel better I think that if, say, the Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania legislatures had tried to overturn their states' votes in the 2020 election enough Fortune 100 companies would have stepped in behind the scenes to ensure that it didn't happen. Just a wild guess on my part, but the chaos that ensued would be very bad for business. The sad thing is they could do it today by announcing they will not donate money to and will support any opponent of a federal legislator who still voted against certification when they reconvened after the insurrection. That would change the messaging from Republicans real quick. But they won't unless something much crazier happens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 23:59
|
|
|
pthighs posted:If it makes you feel better I think that if, say, the Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania legislatures had tried to overturn their states' votes in the 2020 election enough Fortune 100 companies would have stepped in behind the scenes to ensure that it didn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2021 00:04
|
|
|
The bipartisan crew in the Senate (5 each R and D) announced an infrastructure deal: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/bipartisan-senate-group-reaches-tentative-infrastructure-deal-skepticism-prevails-n1270392 It's $1 trillion over 5 years with basically no pay fors except pegging the gas tax to inflation. I like the amount but I really hope the Dems see the gas tax poo poo and make that a deal breaker. An absurd way to fund this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2021 00:15
|
|
|
Gas prices continuously climbing sounds good to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2021 00:38
|
|
|
Sub Par posted:The bipartisan crew in the Senate (5 each R and D) announced an infrastructure deal: Trash. Too low, too slow, doesn't cause rich people woe
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2021 00:39
|
|
|
Sub Par posted:The bipartisan crew in the Senate (5 each R and D) announced an infrastructure deal:
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2021 00:39
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Gas prices continuously climbing sounds good to me. Yes, lets raise food prices too. No way that doesn't hurt the poor disproportionately!
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2021 00:39
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:So this is down from the $1.7 trillion original proposal? Yeah Biden wanted $1.7T, GOP offered $300B. Biden said no, and then these 10 got together to build a different proposal. And I agree with gas prices going up being good in a vacuum. First we need to decouple the working class from their reliance on gas-powered transportation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2021 00:41
|
|
|
I'm extremely skeptical that they will get 10 GOP votes for a $1 trillion proposal of anything
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2021 00:43
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I'm extremely skeptical that they will get 10 GOP votes for a $1 trillion proposal of anything No if it was tax cuts for the rich they'd be all over that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2021 00:44
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I'm extremely skeptical that they will get 10 GOP votes for a $1 trillion proposal of anything Also, they still don't have 60. And lets say they did, in theory, have 60 votes, the Republicans are going to deny it the second it makes to the floor. They want to waste time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2021 00:45
|
|
|
Saw this without a source, though it sounds like Wyden called into one of the MSNBC shows (Lawrence O'Donnell I think). https://twitter.com/TheRickyDavila/status/1403135400005099522 (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2021 00:49
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/sarahnferris/status/1403053536297029632?s=20 If I may go c-spam for a minute, the democratic party can eat my whole rear end-hole
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2021 00:51
|
|
|
highme posted:Saw this without a source, though it sounds like Wyden called into one of the MSNBC shows (Lawrence O'Donnell I think). good. while i think the compromise bill isnt as bad as i thought. id rather just get the best/better version through reconcilation because the compromise won't have 10 chud votes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2021 00:51
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:https://twitter.com/sarahnferris/status/1403053536297029632?s=20 to be fair that is at least partly correct, hamas is not running an apartheid state as far as i know
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2021 00:52
|
|
|
Israel is probably the thing the Democrats are the worst on. Most other things at least they are typically more divided but on that with like a very small number of exceptions they just refuse to address the truth of the situation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2021 00:56
|
|
|
Sub Par posted:The bipartisan crew in the Senate (5 each R and D) announced an infrastructure deal: The gas price poo poo is intended to turn Joe Biden into Jimmy Carter. I really hope they aren't stupid enough to fall for it. I am sick of seeing some social democrats on twitter talk about how lovely a loving gas tax would be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2021 00:58
|
|
|
They do this knowing full well it leads to a rise in death threats and probably attempts on her life, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2021 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:57 |
|
|
Grammarchist posted:At that point we're in civil war territory. No legislation yet proposed would forestall that. It's the kind of thought that can render you useless, so I try to avoid it. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2021 00:59
|
|