• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About techboy

  • Rank
    The Rookie
  • Birthday 11/14/1973

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • Redskins Fan Since
  • Favorite Redskin
    Mark Murphy
  • Location
    Lorton, VA
  • Interests
    Biblical History, Finance, Travel
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

1,542 profile views
  1. There's one in the heart of London in Trafalgar Square, actually. Oddly enough given to the British by Virginia in 1924.
  2. He'd probably commit perjury too, except in his case it'd be because he was bloviating about how many, how beautiful, and how interested his extra-marital conquests were.
  3. The only reason that the mortgage interest deduction works so well in spurring real estate purchases is that most Americans are really bad at math, and don't understand marginal value or the tax code. In reality, the only people that truly benefit financially from it are the wealthy. That's because it's only worth anything if the taxpayer ends up paying more interest than the standard deduction (which is $12,700 in 2017), only the part that exceeds $12,700 will actually give any benefit, and what benefit there is only a percentage, whatever the tax bracket is. Other deductions can help a bit, but even the most common one, charitable deductions, don't get most people close. In 2016, for example, even people making $200,000 per year only donated an average of $4130, meaning that you still get no benefit from the next $8000 or so even after other minor deductions, and most people donate less than that. Calculating the Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction has some more specific examples: In fact, in 2006, the Tax Foundation found: That's ten years old, but given that the basic problems have not changed, I'm sure it's similar or worse now. If you're wealthy and paying tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest, it sure does help. There's a fun chart in that article too. Of course, most people don't understand this, so it does drive home purchasing. If you like that effect enough, I suppose a very regressive tax code isn't as much of a problem, or if you're in the real estate industry, since it does also drive up home prices. For instance:
  4. Trump can't pocket veto the bill because as far as I know, Congress is in session. Pocket vetoes only happen when Congress is out of session. I suppose they could go out of session to save face for Trump, but given that they rammed it through with veto-proof numbers, that doesn't seem likely.
  5. It looks to me like McCain intentionally killed this, so in that sense, I'd assign more credit for stopping the legislation than to the other two Republicans (though they get credit for sticking to their guns). The reason I say that is McCain didn't have to come back to stop the bill from passing. He could have stayed in Arizona and gotten treatment for his brain cancer, and no one would have said a word. Well, no one sensible, which I guess means that the Trump die hards would have been excoriating him, but I digress. If he had done that, though, McConnell wouldn't have brought the bill up, because 49 votes is not enough to pass. They would have just kept arm twisting for the one more they needed. Instead, he made a big show of asking Ryan for assurances and coming back to the Capitol, which in turn spurred McConnell to bring it to a vote, especially because he was playing coy ("Watch the show") until it was too late to call the whole thing off without losing a lot of face. Then he made a big production of torpedoing it.
  6. Here's the actual question: "If Donald Trump shot someone on 5th Avenue, would you approve or disapprove of the job he’s doing as President?" If they really wanted to know if people would care if Trump shot someone on 5th Avenue, the question should have been worded something like: "Would it change your opinion of President Trump if he shot someone on 5th Avenue"? The way it's worded is intentionally written to elicit bigger numbers of people that supposedly don't care, for a number of reasons, mostly because the two parts of the question aren't really connected. They're two separate thoughts... This leads to various problems: 1. As a teacher, I can tell you that many people don't read or listen to an entire question. They just answer the part they happen to catch, usually the last bit. I guarantee a lot of the favorables came from people that were only heard/read the "approve of the job he's doing as President?" 2. Some people probably separated the action from the job as president, like "well, he should be impeached for murder, but I like the job otherwise". It's a weird question. How else do you think that 26% of Trump voters were "unsure"? What sense does that make? How are only 90% of Clinton voters on disapprove? 10% aren't sure if Trump committing murder would make them approve of him or not? 17% of voters for the Libertarian candidate would approve? They're THAT anti-government? Come on.
  7. The trolling being done is by the pollster. Click through a couple times. That question is written to elicit that response.
  8. Honestly, I've always thought the Founding Fathers probably weren't justified in starting a war*, so maybe that's not a great comparison anyway. *Please don't report me to the RNC. Thanks.
  9. Snopes says it's false... I'm on my phone, but you can Google it yourself... "Pence Jesus Care".
  10. NY Times - Back to the Center, Democrats

    I just watched a show that made a compelling case that sport hunting is the best (and possibly only) way to protect said endangered species. A few rich guys can provide a lot of money which pays for that protection in otherwise cripplingly poor areas, and it gives the locals incentive to discourage poaching when otherwise they have no reason to care. Who cares about some rhino when your child is starving?
  11. I'm not sure you can read too much into that. If I was working in the Trump administration, I'd lawyer up too, even if I wasn't guilty of anything. Especially if I wasn't guilty of anything. That goes triple if it turns out to have some element of RICO. Those cases are notorious for dragging down even incidentals in a wide net. A lot of people would argue that the RICO laws are actually a serious government overreach.
  12. Now THERE'S a conspiracy with some legs for me. WHY don't posts count in the Tailgate? Who benefits? Don't mod me! I HAVE QUESTIONS!!!!!
  13. All I will say is you should apply that same level of skepticism and questioning to the alternate explanations you have apparently embraced. Good luck.
  14. In another thread you claimed that Bush orchestrated 9/11. Shouldn't it have been YOUR tears in this scenario?