I am your avatar.
Yeah. I assume they would have to set some kind of limit to x% of worker income, I think 11% was the target with Obamacare (though it hasn't met that goal for a long time now). For businesses not currently providing health care, maybe a requirement for higher wages or a higher business tax rate.
Declaring fetuses as "persons" sets up a really interesting equal protection argument. I.e., this explicitly contravenes the Constitution in that it declares one group of people (pregnant women) as having lesser rights than potential persons. IOW, inferior rights to all other humans.
They need to call it "SAVE the Republicans' Asses Act" because that's what it's intended to do.
Red-bellied woodpeckers love to drill on things like aluminum gutters and steel chimney caps, because it makes such a loud noise.
They're really into metal.
Stephen Miller Reassures Sick Wife He Knows What It Looks Like When Woman Dying https://theonion.com/stephen-miller-reassures-sick-wife-he-knows-what-it-loo-1843398299/
If you hitch up your britches just a little bit higher, Grandpa, they can help support your tits.
these groups will target an area and overpay for the first few homes they buy to "set the price" for the area - which ultimately means, inflating the price for all buyers. Also not particularly good for realtors.
who want to make it easier for those folks to own everything. Which is who Tarrio et al support, despite so many of them being realtors who are not smart enough to see that they're crapping on their own market.
This investment thing has also driven up home prices in a lot of areas because some of
Again, I'm not talking about individual realtors. Most of these investor ventures don't even use realtors; they advertise on TV, radio, online, etc., and if a homeowner contacts them they make an offer and if accepted, there's never a realtor involved.
I'm talking about the people in elected office
That wasn't my point. My point is that investors sell less frequently than individuals do. So eventually once they've bought all or most of the housing, there's not much left for realtors to sell. They're killing the market they depend on for their living.
He wrote most or all of his novels as serial publications, so he may have been. But I don't find him overly verbose. Then again, I've read all of Faulkner's novels.
Dickens is wonderful. By the time you finish Great Expectations, you'll probably want to pick up one of his others. There are so many good ones!
have a significant value-add compared to cardboard boxes, I asked the broker, "How many homes have you sold to people who work at the box factory?" None, he says. Because they don't make enough money to buy homes. I just looked at him with raised brows to see if the bulb in his head would light up.
Thank you! Was talking with a dumbass Fox-addled leader of a brokerage back in 2010 who was exercised at the thought that autoworkers were getting paid $28 per hour. One of his assistants piped up with, "When I worked at the box factory, we only got $8 an hour!" After pointing out to her that cars
Realtors are some stupid motherfuckers.
You'd think it would have occurred to them that investors buying up all the housing stock is not a good thing for their business. Instead they're trying to help the side that's trying to make it easier for investors to buy up all the housing stock.
your identity when you go to vote, you give the poll worker your name, address, and/or birthdate, they look you up in the precinct voting roll, you sign the roll book, and they give you your ballot. The only thing ID would prevent is registered voter IMPERSONATION, which is not a thing that happens.
People who believe many vote illegally are people who don't vote, so they need to shut the fuck up since they've decided not to put any skin in the game.
I say they don't vote because people who do know you have to be REGISTERED to vote, at which time you prove your identity. After that, to prove
Oh look ... here's the specific statute they could easily be convicted for violating:
www.justice.gov/archives/jm/...
It was vandalism that caused billions of dollars in damages.
Vandalism causing damages over $5,000 (slightly higher in some jurisdictions) is a felony crime. Damages in the billions would definitely warrant long sentences of incarceration.
Forcing every American to produce a passport or birth certificate to vote because an average of 3 - THREE - non-citizens attempt to vote each year is NOT "common sense." It's bullshit motivated reasoning to achieve a goal of suppressing the right to vote of citizens.
"here's a 1.6% salary bump to cover the 25% increase in cost of living since 2020"
Or even, how about a tax code that imposes a penalty in the form of a higher rate for businesses that DON'T pay living wages? That's easily defensible; these businesses are offloading the costs of generating a profit onto government assistance programs.
there's always the opportunity for squabbling over personal possessions not specifically willed to any individual. I just have a few small things I'd like to have, so hopefully if there's any disagreements it will be between the others.
established or disproven, and 3) lie to the judge AGAIN by misrepresenting evidence as proof of false claims.
People suck. Many of them, at least. Makes me a bit nervous that my mom has me set up to be executor of her estate. Thankfully she has a will that divides things evenly but even then,
as executor of the estate, and at settlement, they are going to try to make the sister pick up the legal costs out of her share of the estate.
I mean, incredible that someone would 1) file an easily disproved false affidavit, 2) lie to a judge in a hearing on a matter that can be factually
been running around with a document stamped by the court asserting that she is the sole heir.)
So my friend went and got an attorney; the attorney was finally able to shake loose from the investment firm that there had been no named beneficiary. So they ended up in probate after all with my friend
it proved she was the named beneficiary. Except it didn't, but for some reason the judge said she was "convinced" that the sister was the beneficiary because the investment firm "wouldn't have allowed her to transfer the funds to account in her name if she wasn't." (Remember that the sister has
she had been named beneficiary of the deceased brother's 401k account. My friend challenged that and said they needed to see proof. The judge ordered the sister to provide proof; the sister then submitted a bullshit flurry of papers on one of which she had circled something and written a note that
I have a friend whose brother died intestate with a small estate that would have allowed settlement without probate BUT ... her sister ran down to the court and filed an affidavit claiming she was the sole heir. When my friend filed a challenge with the court, in the hearing her sister then claimed
