Not Covid--fear.What is “locked down” where you live? Nothing is locked down in the Indy metro area. Now, because of the pandemic, there are no conventions, hotel stays, live music, etc. All of that is because of Covid. Not lock downs.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not Covid--fear.What is “locked down” where you live? Nothing is locked down in the Indy metro area. Now, because of the pandemic, there are no conventions, hotel stays, live music, etc. All of that is because of Covid. Not lock downs.
so if someone made 70 in 2019 but was on pace to make 200 this year they get the check , that doesn't seem right. in certain industries that is possible.But eligibility is based on your income reported in your last tax return, right? Deferring income into 2021 isn't going to help someone get a check. Besides, what you describe is not necessarily fraud. And sure, government programs have fraud. But that doesn't mean the programs themselves are not worthwhile.
As for the stimulus checks, perhaps the best way to do it would be to give everyone $2,000 and then just take it back in taxes from those whose income for the year demonstrates they did not need it.
Not Covid--fear.
joe burrow would get a check , I'm sure his lsu money was cash and not reported. kind of crazy to think of someone who with salary endorsement etc probably on pace to make 10 mil this year will get a 600 checkso if someone made 70 in 2019 but was on pace to make 200 this year they get the check , that doesn't seem right. in certain industries that is possible.
so if someone made 70 in 2019 but was on pace to make 200 this year they get the check , that doesn't seem right. in certain industries that is possible.
joe burrow would get a check , I'm sure his lsu money was cash and not reported. kind of crazy to think of someone who with salary endorsement etc probably on pace to make 10 mil this year will get a 600 check
I want people who need it to get it too. But it’s not a few thousand more. It’s tens of millions. And a debt all of us will have to repay. They knew more stimulus was coming. They had months to develop a means test. Nope. Too busy raising money for their own elections. We’ll just raise taxes in a few years to cover the checks to people who didn’t need nor want it.There are always edge cases. I have yet to see any kind of evidence that this would be a widespread problem. I couldn't care less if Joe Burrow and a few thousand more people who don't need it get it if that means getting the help to the millions who do need it.
Because the relationship between cities and people who live outside them but work inside them is unfairly balanced in favor of the latter. Costs are internalized while benefits are externalized to the entire metro area.
Stl offsets suburban flight with a city earnings tax. We we have a metro of over 2 mil and a city of only 300,000 plus. We went from a city of 1 mil to 300,000 plus. Earnings tax is a huge part of its budget.Do you have any quick reads on this? It seems like a valid argument to me, though I am curious what the specific costs and benefits are and how urban planners might quantify them.
People move to the suburbs for multiple reasons: cheaper housing, larger housing, better schools, lower crime, etc, so the the bigger question is, what are realistic solutions?
midwestern cities were making a major comeback in recent years, blm and dumbasses blowing up r.v.s will certainly end the trendStl offsets suburban flight with a city earnings tax.
After our summer of love the ceo of the biggest company in Stl said if crime doesn’t abate here they will relocate to Charlotte. They had a three phase build and called off the third phase.midwestern cities were making a major comeback in recent years, blm and dumbasses blowing up r.v.s will certainly end the trend
I want people who need it to get it too. But it’s not a few thousand more. It’s tens of millions. And a debt all of us will have to repay. They knew more stimulus was coming. They had months to develop a means test. Nope. Too busy raising money for their own elections. We’ll just raise taxes in a few years to cover the checks to people who didn’t need nor want it.
All fair pointsYou've already said that you can't just do it based on income because cost of living should factor in. So how do you make it politically palatable to give stimulus to people making 100k in SF where that's barely subsistence-level income and refuse it to people making 40k in rural Wyoming because they wouldn't need it? How do you balance income with assets? What year do you use? That's all really complicated and it's going to have loopholes and edge cases at least as bad as the one you're talking about, and administering it is enormously costlier than a simple program that over-provisions the benefit. I'd much rather checks go to a middle class family who wouldn't have starved without it than to a complicated bureaucracy that still won't do much better at actually differentiating individual need.
I'm afraid I don't have a quick go-to read. I was first introduced to the idea when I read James Michener's essay collection The Quality of Life in high school. One of the essays describes how he watched Philadelphia choked to death by an inability to expand its borders and capture all the necessary taxes from people in surrounding towns thanks to Pennsylvania's strict annexation laws at the time.Do you have any quick reads on this? It seems like a valid argument to me, though I am curious what the specific costs and benefits are and how urban planners might quantify them.
People move to the suburbs for multiple reasons: cheaper housing, larger housing, better schools, lower crime, etc, so the the bigger question is, what are realistic solutions?
That’s precisely what contributed to the demise of Stl. Early on the inability to annex the surrounding communities which gave rise to 90 plus munis and the loss of attendant taxes.I'm afraid I don't have a quick go-to read. I was first introduced to the idea when I read James Michener's essay collection The Quality of Life in high school. One of the essays describes how he watched Philadelphia choked to death by an inability to expand its borders and capture all the necessary taxes from people in surrounding towns thanks to Pennsylvania's strict annexation laws at the time.
Anyone who has ever lived in a city and followed a story about an annexation battle instinctively understands the problem. That's probably why it immediately seems like a valid argument to you. I don't have any answers. City planners have been trying to come up with the answers for decades. Annexation always seems to be fallback.
Why do Dems support section 230?
Yeah I don’t get it. Years ago I had a client that was a helicopter instructor. He clipped the end of his hanger and crashed it. No one was hurt. His only incident in probably thirty plus years. A rival instructor got hold of the video and kept publishing it over and over on YouTube. For years. He’d share it on there until a ton of people saw it. It really hurt the guy’s biz. I eventually sued google for him hoping if nothing else they’d remove it. But google was insulated by liability. We couldn’t do squat. It’s a shitty deal.FWIW I’m all for calling the Republicans’ bluff on that one. You make Facebook et. al. liable for the content on their platform the very first thing to go is conspiracy theory nonsense like Q and antivaxx. The very next thing is anything promoting any kind of violence, so every 2nd amendment and pro-gun group and post goes poof, they won’t take the chance that a post there leads to a shooting later. Twitter will immediately ban everyone including politicians posting outright lies, especially ones that are potentially dangerous like downplaying COVID. Repealing 230 will actually lead to the replay forming that righties whine about today, should be a fun ride and maybe we’ll get a better middle ground afterward.
It would also open the floodgates for Trump or anyone else to start suing Google and Twitter and Facebook and everyone else for anything derogatory that's posted. Section 230 allows the platforms to edit or reject content but doesn't require that they do or don't. Taking it away would set everything on it's head. Repealing Section 230 would give the liars and the kooks and the inciters you mention even more influence.FWIW I’m all for calling the Republicans’ bluff on that one. You make Facebook et. al. liable for the content on their platform the very first thing to go is conspiracy theory nonsense like Q and antivaxx. The very next thing is anything promoting any kind of violence, so every 2nd amendment and pro-gun group and post goes poof, they won’t take the chance that a post there leads to a shooting later. Twitter will immediately ban everyone including politicians posting outright lies, especially ones that are potentially dangerous like downplaying COVID. Repealing 230 will actually lead to the replay forming that righties whine about today, should be a fun ride and maybe we’ll get a better middle ground afterward.
But it leaves businesses and people with zero recourse. They are left at the mercy of a platform that may or may not respond. One can have horrible shit posted; reputational shit; pics; whatever. Immunity isn’t okay. And what you write is valid too. There has to be some other way. Maybe the platform has to provide posters’ info to the party harmed. I don’t know. And tethering this stimulus etc is nonsense bs. I’ve just seen firsthand how platforms like YouTube really harm peopleIt would also open the floodgates for Trump or anyone else to start suing Google and Twitter and Facebook and everyone else for anything derogatory that's posted. Section 230 allows the platforms to edit or reject content but doesn't require that they do or don't. Taking it away would set everything on it's head. Repealing Section 230 would give the liars and the kooks and the inciters you mention even more influence.
Why didn't you sue the rival?A rival instructor got hold of the video and kept publishing it over and over on YouTube. For years. He’d share it on there until a ton of people saw it. It really hurt the guy’s biz. I eventually sued google for him hoping if nothing else they’d remove it. But google was insulated by liability.
We never could identify him. The helicopter flight instructor World is cutthroat!! Movies could be made about it. Documentaries. Like narcos but only with old white helicopter guysWhy didn't you sue the rival?
There has to be some other way. Maybe the platform has to provide posters’ info to the party harmed. I don’t know.
Why didn't you sue the rival?
I can see how that would be a problem. I have to believe that could be rectified without repealing Section 230 wholesale.We never could identify him.
I'm afraid I don't have a quick go-to read. I was first introduced to the idea when I read James Michener's essay collection The Quality of Life in high school. One of the essays describes how he watched Philadelphia choked to death by an inability to expand its borders and capture all the necessary taxes from people in surrounding towns thanks to Pennsylvania's strict annexation laws at the time.
Anyone who has ever lived in a city and followed a story about an annexation battle instinctively understands the problem. That's probably why it immediately seems like a valid argument to you. I don't have any answers. City planners have been trying to come up with the answers for decades. Annexation always seems to be fallback.
That’s the problem. It was both altered and the comments underneath weren’t true about the owner. So we would post the original one. Then three months later the altered would be posted again with more comments etc. it went on and onI can see how that would be a problem. I have to believe that could be rectified without repealing Section 230 wholesale.
Edit to add: Regardless, if the video was unaltered and accurate, it's kind of hard to complain about someone posting truthful information.
In that case, yes Google should be required to identify the uploader and actions be taken against them, not Google.That’s the problem. It was both altered and the comments underneath weren’t true about the owner. So we would post the original one. Then three months later the altered would be posted again with more comments etc. it went on and on
It would also open the floodgates for Trump or anyone else to start suing Google and Twitter and Facebook and everyone else for anything derogatory that's posted. Section 230 allows the platforms to edit or reject content but doesn't require that they do or don't. Taking it away would set everything on it's head. Repealing Section 230 would give the liars and the kooks and the inciters you mention even more influence.
Id love to know how much goat, marv, unclebulk and others are getting paid for their absurd partisan posts on this site. That “trailer” is for show. Guaranteed.I knew people in the early and mid 90s who made good money being moderators for chat rooms. I remember in chat rooms from the old days having to submit a post for approval before it would actually be posted for others to see. Let the cons repeal it and then listen to them bitch about censorship even more.
Soros sends us bundles of cash. I do not even bother counting any more.Id love to know how much goat, marv, unclebulk and others are getting paid for their absurd partisan posts on this site. That “trailer” is for show. Guaranteed.
Make all the jokes you want, but check out Mark's double-wide sometime. It sits on a hill with a commanding view of all the surrounding single-wides, much like the manor house of the local baron at the heart of a medieval village.Id love to know how much goat, marv, unclebulk and others are getting paid for their absurd partisan posts on this site. That “trailer” is for show. Guaranteed.
Some of the serfs are hot, too.Make all the jokes you want, but check out Mark's double-wide sometime. It sits on a hill with a commanding view of all the surrounding single-wides, much like the manor house of the local baron at the heart of a medieval village.
It would also open the floodgates for Trump or anyone else to start suing Google and Twitter and Facebook and everyone else for anything derogatory that's posted. Section 230 allows the platforms to edit or reject content but doesn't require that they do or don't. Taking it away would set everything on it's head. Repealing Section 230 would give the liars and the kooks and the inciters you mention even more influence.
Chuck said he'd be fine with bringing up Section 230 and a voter fraud commission as separate votes. Mitch said no.Maybe, though the legal war chest at Facebook is a pretty daunting thing to go up against. To be clear I think repealing 230 is a terrible idea, but I also think at some point the dems have to call some bluffs or they’ll continue to lose the fights that really matter.
Chuck said he'd be fine with bringing up Section 230 and a voter fraud commission as separate votes. Mitch said no.
Make all the jokes you want, but check out Mark's double-wide sometime. It sits on a hill with a commanding view of all the surrounding single-wides, much like the manor house of the local baron at the heart of a medieval village.
I figured as much re unclebulk’s castleSoros sends us bundles of cash. I do not even bother counting any more.
I see Mitch called the $2000 stimulus "welfare for the rich". Can anyone explain how people making under $75,000 are "the rich"? Most of them do not get the Soros money I get
Chuck and Nancy can claim they're perfectly happy to vote on all three Trump proposals but Mitch won't allow the vote because he doesn't want to cut the $2000 checks.Yep, exactly, and Mitch is counting on the Dems to be spineless and cave with 230 held over their heads. A hostage is going to be shot here one way or the other, I’d rather that be the internet than people desperate for this help.
Damn right. And you kids need to keep at it while I'm now sucking the public teat full time while laying around in my castle doin' nothin'. I worked hard for it and earned everything I've got.I figured as much re unclebulk’s castle
Congrats on retiring!Damn right. And you kids need to keep at it while I'm now sucking the public teat full time while laying around in my castle doin' nothin'. I worked hard for it and earned everything I've got.
Been on Social Security for two months and already got a raise! Now get back to work!Congrats on retiring!