No, that's actually a pretty reasonable idea. Given that they've never lost a cent of money, can take more from the other banks if they need to, and are ultimately backed by the people who print the money.
You don't understand insurance or how the FDIC works.
He was indeed not running for a state or local office in Missouri.
“A lot of people don’t don’t think about the fact that Donald Trump, if he met all the other requirements, if he was a Missouri resident, could not run for state representative or state Senate,” Davis told the Missouri Independent.
“He would be precluded from running for these offices but was able to be re-elected president of the United States. So I think that at least causes people to start thinking about the issue a little more than they might otherwise,” Davis added.
The law in question did not apply to him, and the bill was just named referencing him.
The entire thing is moot. All I was saying is that Missouri doesn't permanently disenfranchise felons, and the law being discussed didn't apply to trump for a variety of reasons.
No, they really don't. We may have built infrastructure to accommodate the existence of cars, but if a truck can drive on it it needs to be designed to tolerate them. Once it's built for that, a pedestrian and a car are closer in terms of road wear that a car and a truck.
Roads that see less freight traffic need maintenance radically less often. Placing the responsibility for ongoing maintenance on the entity that's doing the damage makes sense.
I don't see how "we don't have adequate public transportation to rely on it" is irrelevant. People need to get places to work and live, and the people most impacted by a regressive gas tax are already not taking long trips. You don't change their behavior by taking money out of their pocket, you just make them hungry.
Today, where we live, the vehicles that we would rather people use weigh quite a bit more, but use far less gas and have significantly lower carbon emissions. Shifting to a pure millage based road maintenance fee system signals that all else being equal, gas and electric are equally desirable. A pure weight system makes gas preferable. Removing the maintenance burden from the people contributing the least to it lets other incentives push people in the right direction, while pushing the main force of road wear to use trains more, which is feasible in the medium term because we already have freight rail that can supplant most intercity trucking.
Current plans are to tax and fee the financial benefits of electric vehicles away while shielding businesses from paying their fair share of road costs.
why not get rid of all gas taxes and road fees
Yes, that it what I would like to do for non-commercial vehicles. I am firmly opposed to regressive taxes.
Disproportionately burdening low income people doesn't advance the cause of there being less cars on the road. If taken too far, it hurts that goal because money they could use moving to a walkable neighborhood or at least getting a more efficient vehicle is instead being used paying the penalty for not doing those things.
In the timeframe that we're going to start having problems with road maintenance funding we're not going to be able to meaningfully change peoples transportation habits beyond "middle class has more EVs and works from home more". The best we can do is at least not reverse that trend.
It's moot though, since our current trajectory will likely be to lower the gas tax (popular with low income voters), add a tax on EVs (popular with people who dislike the environmentally conscious or middle class and want to punish them), and to make up the difference by shifting budget from education to road maintenance. Probably see some bills to outlaw EVs due to lithiums environmental impact while also removing emissions standards entirely.
I'm not super interested in defending trump or Missouri, but he was neither sentenced in general nor convicted of a felony, or running for office, in Missouri.
So other than the name and inspiration, none of this even applies to him.
I was just pointing out that in Missouri, felons aren't completely disenfranchised. Yay marginally better civil rights than a lot of people assumed!
Felons actually can vote in Missouri if they've completed their sentence. This includes parole and probation terms.
Permanent disenfranchisement is actually less common than people think. It's still too common by far, and we need to revisit the reasoning for disenfranchisement while incarcerated or on probation, but in most of the country a felony doesn't prevent voting permanently.
I don't think doing it at the same time works because it takes much longer to setup any form of mass transit, and far longer to make areas livable without a car. It's not about waiting until there's a perfect bus route, just making sure people have anything viable before we start pushing them to stop using what they have. Leave for work eight hours before you start, risk your life walking on the highway in the snow, or get fired just isn't a choice we can put on people, especially when we've tied food, medical and housing assistance to working literally any job that will hire you.
Tying it to vehicle weight and miles traveled and only for commercial vehicles is tied to usage. Cars just don't matter from a road wear perspective. The marginal cost of driving is the operating and maintenance costs for the vehicle.
Low income people are already good at budgeting those costs because travel consumes so much of their budget.
There's a whooopoooole lot of factors that can be involved, and it can be a combination of all of them.
Background: microwaves don't just heat water, they heat things with molecules that, like water, have a lopsided electric charge. When the microwave energy comes in contact with something, it either goes through it without interacting, bounces off of it, or is absorbed. Light with a window, a mirror and black paint is the same.
Lopsided molecules absorb the microwave and wiggle, and wiggly molecules are what we perceive as hot.
Microwave safe items are transparent to the microwave energy, and it goes through to the food.
Depending on the material your plate or bowl is made of, it might not be properly microwave safe. Some ceramics have the lopsided molecules microwaves like, so they get hot.
The bowl might also be made of a material that transfers heat really well. Think about how air from a hot oven is tolerable to have hit your face but significantly colder water is lethal.
It's in continuous contact with something that's getting up to boiling, the steam on the food, and so it gets hot quickly and transfers the heat to your hand easily. Since water can absorb a ton of energy before turning to steam, the energy is there for a while and there's plenty to heat the bowl.
Finally, microwaves have hotspots, even with the rotating tray. This can work with either of the previous two things to allow the food to stay cold while pumping a lot of energy into the bowl or one spot in the food. It's why a lot of reheat functions run the microwave and then sit for a few minutes:it lets the heat from the hotspots even out.
I was a bit skeptical as well, but there's at least one seemingly reputable academic researcher who says as much: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_protests (first citation).
So even if it wasn't, one could easily be forgiven for the mistake.
The estate has a duty to maximize the value of the liquidation, and pay back creditors as best it can. Specifically to settle the debts.
While a creditor can't dictate the value of the estate, they can offer to forgive debt, which is the same for the purposes of the estate.
If the cancelled debt would have been worth more than the cash, then the creditors would be rightfully furious if the state instead sold the asset for less cash and paid them that way.
If you owe me $50k, and I tell you your watch is worth $5k to me, and instead you sell it for $250 and give me that while declaring bankruptcy so I don't get anything else, that's a terrible outcome for me, and great for you if you sold the watch to your friend who then gave it back to you in exchange for $250 later.
No, that's actually still the market deciding. It's a perfectly standard type of auction that discourages low-ball bids. Bidding is secret, you only get one bid, and you don't know who or if anyone else is bidding.
If you want it, you make your best offer for what you're willing to pay for it, and if someone else bid more they get it. If you would have been willing to pay more with more rounds of bidding, you should have bid that from the start.
Open-bid auctions get better prices for sellers when there are a lot of bidders, and better prices for buyers when there are few. Given there were two bidders, it's fair to seek the most either party will bid, rather than seeking $1 more than the maximum the loosing party will pay.
That's essentially what they did. They chose an auction type where each party offers as much as they're willing to pay and the highest offer wins. The Sandy Hook families included a chunk of their debt in the offer which was part of the value.
Not even remotely true. In the 2008 financial crisis, between 2008 and 2012 , there were nearly 500 bank failures, and more than a trillion in assets involved and the FDIC covered every cent labeled to be covered.