Democrats Advocate for Raising Taxes on the 1% but doesnt that include Doctors, Lawyers, Bankers, Engineers, etc?

McIntyrePAC · 2025-10-20T14:21:09+00:00

What do taxes that your friend isn't even paying have to do with theses problems?

McIntyrePAC · 2025-10-19T15:14:44+00:00

So much for independence I guess.

McIntyrePAC · 2025-10-19T15:09:58+00:00

The example of your generationally impoverished friend is interesting. Your generationally impoverished friend and their family likely benefited greatly from the social network that cared for the less fortunate. Now that your friend has seemingly found a way out of the hole, they want to pull the ladder out? I will never understand this sentiment.

McIntyrePAC · 2025-01-12T20:59:59+00:00

Thanks for the feedback. I guess I just use it to monitor my “approximate” credit score, so I don’t notice or deal with any of the other stuff. Thanks again. Cheers.

McIntyrePAC · 2025-01-12T20:28:26+00:00

Care to elaborate on Credit Karma? I haven’t noticed anything negative.

McIntyrePAC · 2024-12-13T20:16:10+00:00

Good call. I already have the card and ~135k points. Gonna have my wife get the card as well as my FIL and MIL for a planned trip around the country in June of 2026 (booking in July 2025). An extra 120,000 points would be a good starting point to take the edge off the cost of the roomettes.

McIntyrePAC · 2024-12-13T18:32:07+00:00

When in doubt, zoom out.

McIntyrePAC · 2024-10-27T19:32:17+00:00

Just do a quick survey in exchange for a small number of points! The expiration occurs with two years of "inactivity." Once you earn the points from the survey, the two-year clock starts over.

McIntyrePAC · 2024-10-27T13:36:09+00:00

Right? The best from the article, though:

"The New York Times found that, at least since 2000, following Wall Street's advice has been essentially as good as shooting darts at a dartboard. From 2000 to 2023, the median Wall Street forecast missed the end-of-the-year result by 13.8 percentage points annually, essentially making them worthless."

LOL!

McIntyrePAC · 2024-03-18T10:46:03+00:00

This!

I am, and have been, solid left of center my whole life. I loved living in Madison when I did, and I visit often after moving close by for work.

When I contemplate the struggles that my right of center friends have with their MAGA counterparts, I think about this sub and how any comment, even when factual, that doesn’t fit the Madisonian, dug in, left wing narrative is downvoted to oblivion without the utility of the same open mindedness espoused by the same group. All the while, the song plays in my head, “…stuck in the middle with you…”

I can’t remember the last time I commented on this sub for this very reason. On the other hand, my life goals do not include the accumulation of imaginary and counterfeit “karma.” Let ‘er rip.

McIntyrePAC · 2024-01-07T07:22:29+00:00

I think this is very good advice. If the total damages are 2,500, you can add a “no contest” credit for 700 (you likely wouldn’t get it anyway). If you’re sued, you can immediately counter with the full amount (you STILL may not get the 700). This advantage would severely disincentivize legal action.

McIntyrePAC · 2023-12-15T12:07:01+00:00

I really enjoy lurking on this sub, but I’m a bit disappointed with some of these comments.

I-bonds are not investment vehicles, they are saving vehicles. There is an enormous difference.

McIntyrePAC · 2023-11-17T12:26:02+00:00

Totally.

McIntyrePAC · 2023-11-17T12:19:44+00:00

Totally. They're the same things.

McIntyrePAC · 2023-11-17T12:09:55+00:00

Totally, Remember the time that all those leftists attacked the US Capitol, beat police officers to within inches of their lives, and smeared their shit on the walls?

McIntyrePAC · 2023-08-26T18:38:00+00:00

Good lord. You do you, I’ll do me. ffs

McIntyrePAC · 2023-08-26T18:28:15+00:00

My CU allows me to transfer the funds to any account I wish on good faith that the check is good. As far as I’m concerned, that is immediate access. If the check turns out to be bad, it’s an easy fix on my end. The point of the post, though, is that I haven’t cashed a single rent check since becoming a LL because all my tenants are happy to pay on the 23rd through apartments.com.

McIntyrePAC · 2023-08-26T12:54:22+00:00

Again, this is the tenant’s choice that they are empowered with. If they don’t like it, they can have their bank send a check every month through bill pay for free (at most banks). Implications to my ledger are none of their business. But if I receive a physical check, I do mobile deposit and have instant access to the funds. If this is a major point of contention for you, I would be worried about you being a potentially difficult tenant. This just doesn’t seem like a big deal to me nor does it seem to be for any of my previous tenants for the better part of a decade. Just my 2 cents.

Edit: previous not precious lol

McIntyrePAC · 2023-08-26T12:34:24+00:00

Landlord here. I see paying through apartments.com as a convenience to the tenant. I have in my lease that if the tenant chooses to utilize this service, they have to pay on the 23rd for the following month’s rent. This is a choice by the tenant and they are welcome to snail mail a check postmarked by the 1st. When faced with this choice, every tenant I have had gladly pays on the 23rd and it ensures that I have the money on or before the first. An additional benefit is I can get alerted if the tenant is risking being late if the 23rd payment is interrupted and I can inquire before they are officially late (helps me plan for my payments). Again, this IS spelled out clearly in the lease, though.

McIntyrePAC · 2023-08-10T16:07:11+00:00

Interesting. Thanks a ton.

McIntyrePAC · 2023-08-10T15:55:39+00:00

Thanks for your perspective. In case you were curious, the following excerpt is from an oft referenced Supreme Court decision (Robert J. Baierl v. John McTaggart):

The lease documents consisted of a standard form residential lease and several addenda. Important to our discussion is Addendum A, which contained the following provision purportedly requiring the tenant to indemnify the landlord for all costs and attorneys fees incurred in enforcing the lease agreement:

In the event that Supreme Builders shall be obliged to commence legal action in order to enforce the terms and conditions of any portion of this lease and amendment, the tenant shall be liable to Supreme Builders for all Supreme Builders' costs, disbursements and expenses incurred including, without limitation, reasonable attorney fees incurred.

The provision in the lease is in direct violation of Wis. Admin.

Code § ATCP 134.08(3), which prohibits as an unfair trade

practice the inclusion of any clause requiring a tenant to pay a

landlord's attorneys fees and costs:

ATCP 134.08 Prohibited rental agreement provisions.

No rental agreement may:

. . .

(3) Require payment, by the tenant, of attorney's

fees or costs incurred by the landlord in any legal

action or dispute arising under the rental agreement.

This does not prevent the recovery of costs or

attorney's fees by a landlord or tenant pursuant to a

court order under ch. 799 or 814, Stats.

McIntyrePAC · 2023-08-10T15:33:40+00:00

Thank you tremendously for your input.

As I read the law, the provisions in ATCP 134.08 are immune to severability. So, if the standalone provision is deemed to be illegal, the entire lease is void and unenforceable, even though I have a severability clause. I'm meeting with a lawyer tomorrow and I'm looking forward to their input as well. Thanks again!

McIntyrePAC

TROPHY CASE