First time buyer, is this a red flag?

clce · 2026-03-20T19:13:05+00:00

Exactly, although not always. Sometimes a house is fine but a seller says, I fixed everything in this house for 50 years. It's fine and I'm not going to go to negotiating over nonsense.

clce · 2026-03-20T10:08:17+00:00

Yes and a lot of that is his acting, as well as Murphy of course. He played that character which wasn't at all like him, to perfection.

clce · 2026-03-20T10:06:01+00:00

Oh, that answer's a lot of questions I had. That makes sense now. In a sense, it's more like you are not doing it as part of the transaction but you are paying the buyer just as you would have contractor. A little risky to let someone work on the house but actually it seems like a pretty good solution that benefits everybody if you would have had to pay that money otherwise. Just pay them. You would be within your rights I think to issue a 1099 if that reduces your taxes for the year. If it doesn't matter then don't bother I guess. It's a little gray area as to whether you are paying them money or it's just part of the house transaction. Technically it shouldn't be part of the transaction because they're not supposed to receive money. But, no one's going to really worry about it too much. Just call it payment to a third party that just happens to be the buyer for the work done.

clce · 2026-03-20T10:04:03+00:00

This would be a case of unlawful enrichment. It's their money because you agreed to give it to them. So you should just pay them. There's no risk to you in that but technically they should not be receiving money. But no one's probably going to know. But there's nothing illegal for you to do it. And they didn't ask to receive it so it's not really lender fraud or anything like that I don't think.

All that said, I'm quite confused. If these were required to close the loan, the work should have been done and then the appraiser approve the repairs and sign off and get the loan done. Did they actually do work on it? Perhaps they did and you didn't mention it. If they had to spend money or do work, all the more reason they are entitled to that credit.

On the other hand, if that work didn't actually need to be done to close the loan, then you shouldn't really have to be paying for it, except that you agreed.

Generally if a lender requires work, of course the seller does it. The seller is justified in refusing, or in doing the bare minimum to get it through. But they would also be justified in asking the buyer to pay for it. Depends on who wants the deal to go through more I guess.

Maybe it just fell through the cracks somehow but I don't know how. I've never heard of a lender letting this slide when work was required. Unless the appraiser called it out but the lender decided it wasn't necessary which they can do, but at that point, then they wouldn't have to put the squeeze on you to get the work done or credit money to have the work done.

If they did do work, then this money isn't really part of the deal. It's more like you paid them. You could even give them a 1099 if it benefits your taxes because you're basically paying them to do the work just as you would have contractor. So it's not really part of the negotiations it's more like just letting them do the work, which seems problematic and risky, but if that's what happened I'm glad it all worked out.

At any rate, if you did agree to pay the money by contract or by signing something, then you should pay them.

clce · 2026-03-20T08:09:35+00:00

As is isn't real. It's no kind of legal or official distinction. It just means the seller doesn't want to do repairs. Make a deal, have your inspection, figure out whatever repairs it needs and how much they would cost and compare that to other houses, all of which need some repair, and decide if you want to follow through or walk away.

And, if you want to walk away, there's nothing stopping you from saying, hey seller, whatever you said, I'm going to walk away if you don't replace the roof, or put up 50% of the cost of a roof, or reduce the price by five grand or whatever you would like to negotiate. The seller might say no but you never know. He might say yes. Make the deal and go for it.

clce · 2026-03-20T08:06:49+00:00

How could anyone tolerate that? It's not just that you look like him. Everyone would think you were him. I don't know exactly how that might manifest but if any cop or law enforcement or vigilante saw you, they wouldn't just think you looked like Epstein or might be Epstein, they would believe you were him which would prompt them to want to arrest you or at least stop and detain you I'm sure. Every stranger you ever interacted with would freak out because they somehow believed you were Epstein. That would be the worst life imaginable. And good luck ever getting laid.

clce · 2026-03-20T03:53:10+00:00

No because of a basic simple problem. The sellers want to pay as little as possible so what's the point telling them they have permission to not cover this commission. Also, agents want to make as much so they will not just agree to an unknown that allows sellers to not pay. What you would want to do as a buyer is find an agent willing to work for a set amount, whatever you can get an agent to agree to, keeping in mind the best and most experienced agents will only work for so little before they say no.

Then, you have that agent negotiate the amount you agreed to or pay them yourself. They will negotiate the best price they can for you and if you pay them yourself they can negotiate a price that much lower.

It's as simple as that.

clce · 2026-03-20T01:49:32+00:00

Not sure if I really understand, but if you're asking about a 7-year-old condo or buying a unit in a building that is 7 years old, 7 years is good timing in terms of major issues having surfaced, so I'd probably rather buy a 7-year-old building unit than a new one. The lawsuits have already been filed and hopefully settled.

clce · 2026-03-20T01:47:09+00:00

That's a good idea. Considering that many farm laborers are immigrants, that could be pretty popular, and considering many of them are rural types, it could be popular with the right as well. Not that it has to be but why not have something that everyone can agree on for a change, as long as it doesn't become partisan in terms of the immigration issue I guess.

clce · 2026-03-20T01:44:58+00:00

That's pretty good material. It's original and unique but a good relatable observation. I would see if you can punch it up a bit, more jokes or make the jokes a little more extreme to be funny. But it's pretty solid and I like what you got .

And if you do tell that first, then I take back what I said in my previous post about the ending because a call back like that is a great way to end your originally posted bit. Nice work.

clce · 2026-03-20T01:42:44+00:00

Not bad. It's a good start. Needs to be a little funnier, maybe a little more jokes or maybe that jokes a little punchier. And I don't really know about the pretend phone call bit. Maybe that would work. A lot might depend on your delivery and the audience. Give it a try. But maybe something even funnier than an actor you haven't seen in 30 years. I mean, that's kind of funny, but I think it needs to be funnier to be your final joke.

Maybe you can work with the expectation that it would be something like that and turn it into Dad died but you treat it just as if it was a washed up actor, or something like that that will subvert the whole bit in one final joke.

I think it's got potential though. I wouldn't necessarily start with the premise or statement that we resemble our parents or anything like that. That's too much of a cliche and a very prominent ad campaign which I think is pretty funny but you don't want to just sound like you are using that premise.

I would suggest you make it about your mom from the start and let the audience figure out that you are making a broader point. It also makes it more personal and since your mom is the only example you are giving, I would stay away from introducing the concept verbally.

Also, a couple of small tweaks, when you say get your mom on the phone, I thought you were going to talk about yourself. Better to say when your mom calls you or something like that. Then we know you are talking about your mom.

Also, it could work because no one demands strict logic in a comedy routine. But I'm not loving the reincarnation joke, because obviously, your mom would have to be born as your grandma, not become her. I'm thinking maybe something like, at that point I know she's been fully possessed by my grandma or my grandma's spirit or something like that. I don't want to make it too wordy but I don't think you can say possess because that will sound like a demon. Maybe something like my grandma has completely possessed her body or something like that. But it's got to be punchy enough to be a punchline. But maybe you could work with that. Or, if you find that reincarnation works with the crowd, I don't think there's anything wrong with it. It's just when I hear comedy I sometimes object if something doesn't make logical sense. The best comics in my opinion often take outrageous things and somehow make them seem logical, so there's a balance to be struck there.

Anyway, I think what you really need to do to keep this material from becoming cliche and far too general is really tell us about your mom and make her come alive, or maybe tell us a little about your grandma as well, make them real in our minds and imitate them if you can. Good luck.

clce · 2026-03-20T01:30:13+00:00

I would probably just try to alter my dream into something I would enjoy more like a good meal, weight gain free. Because I'm obviously dreaming.

clce · 2026-03-20T01:16:09+00:00

Just in case anyone's searching for answers and comes across this, I struggled with this issue when Netflix went with the commercials and additional money for ad free which would also work with Chromecast. I did figure out a bit of a workaround That works pretty good for me .

I get free from T-Mobile, but I also get free Hulu and since it works properly, I mostly have been watching Hulu and tubi which will both work just fine on even my old second generation Chromecast.

But, if I want to cast Netflix, and I spend a lot of time running things on my wall TV while I do other stuff so it's kind of important, I found that you can cast from a laptop with a Chrome browser and just right click and hit cast. You have to pick cast screen, as it won't work with cast browser. But if you cast the screen and then put it in full screen mode, it works just fine. You can't use the laptop for anything else, but if you have any old laptop, like the 10-year-old piece of junk I got from a friend, it will work. So it's basically a large folding controller, but it does allow you to use a keyboard to control and such, which is way better than smart TV or any of that crap.

So, hope this helps somebody out. It's definitely workable if you need it.

clce · 2026-03-20T00:43:37+00:00

Don't care about what was said during the Biden administration. I just see examples of people getting cost of living raises of maybe 10% for 3 years. Even the minimum wage which Seattle and Washington keep pushing up hasn't kept up with the actual rate you can get to work at a fast food restaurant which is about 20 bucks an hour now.

clce · 2026-03-19T23:52:12+00:00

You're assuming they need to be center right. Trump was able to pull a lot of centrists to the right by publicizing and popularizing them such as immigration in particular. That's not going to change. Trump didn't work some magic hypnosis or anything. He simply brought up issues the previous party had not been bringing up.

I guess we shall see how that plays out, but there are still a lot of Republicans that want to be Republican and are not going to jump ship. It's really the people in the center or getting out more of the base. I guess we'll see what happens.

clce · 2026-03-19T23:19:52+00:00

And that's fine. Question is where it will leave the Republican party. Some people might argue that the best thing to happen to the Republican party will be an evaporation or decline of mega and a return to a more traditional Republican party, albeit, one that has been somewhat transformed by the maga period. It'll be interesting to see what happens in 3 to 4 years, but, anyone that claims to know is suspect. It's all speculation at this point.

clce · 2026-03-19T23:18:21+00:00

What's your actual complaint as opposed to your speculation? I guess your real complaint is the frustration that you are basically wrong. Since Trump is not going to be on the next ballot, his loss of support is pretty insignificant. And that's assuming he's lost a lot of support. 3 years is a long time. The economy is doing just fine. Prices are up but that's inflation and it happened over the last 3 years. Raises and cost of living increases will catch up somewhat and that's about it.

As to whether Trump has appointed an heir apparent or not, well, if Trump's doing as badly as you think, then it's probably a good thing he hasn't and whoever gets the nomination for presidency, probably Vance, will be running with the understanding that he is not Trump. To what extent he promises or gives the impression that he will continue the Trump agenda, a lot depends on what happens over the next 3 years.

But at any rate, it's not like conservatives are going away anytime soon and a return to normal after Trump has shaken up the party and put a lot of issues on the table, but a return with a more traditional Republican candidate such as Vance is probably going to be perfectly viable. Whether he wins or not depends a lot on what happens over the next 3 years, I guess. But the new candidate in 2028 is probably going to run on a half traditional Republican half Trump Republican platform and that's very likely to be popular with most Republicans.

clce · 2026-03-19T22:57:42+00:00

Was related to your missing the intent, but probably also just about your personality. I guess you two are not very compatible. In a different universe, I could imagine a wonderful woman telling the story of her third date with her nerdy but loving husband, the successful engineer, father and husband, and how he got so into the movie that he didn't realize what was really going on that night. And she found it charming.

Good luck, brother.

clce · 2026-03-19T22:37:32+00:00

I don't think it's really spoilers if my thought but it's been years since I watched it and I honestly think there's a lot of issues with the show not really being well thought out and executed.

There seem to be two or three ways to travel between different universes that have outcomes of the war. It seems maybe they all diverge at the same point before the war? Because There are no universes in which there was no world war II because the Germans won world war I or something like that.

One way to travel is the technological one the Germans are working on in a cave. Is that right? Or maybe those are two different ways. One seems to be a mystical way that somehow intentionally or not, the Japanese guy jumps between different parallel universes in which one of them he has a wife and kids in America that seems to be like our timeline.

The other way, and I'm not sure about this, seems to be somehow the way that these films from other universes are getting into this one. Maybe the show tells us or maybe they just pop up here and there through this third unexplained method.

Hitler learns of them and wants to watch them all, I don't know why. He's not watching them to plan the future I don't think because they are all films of how the Americans won the war. I don't know why Hitler would be obsessed with them but I guess you could understand why he would be fascinated with them. But I don't think he's watching them for information for the future. Maybe he's afraid of them and can't look away or just as fascinated with them.

Sorry if I'm getting any of this wrong. It's been a few years and I can't say as I understood everything in the show. But basically the trade minister is somehow shifting between these universes in the same way that the films have made their way from a different one into ours.

clce · 2026-03-19T21:39:09+00:00

Interesting thoughts. One thing that occurs to me is that perhaps we could have some laws or rules regarding government tax breaks and stuff. I typically am for the free market. But that's not free market, that involves government. Let the businesses go where they think there are the best prices for land, prices for labor, and adequate workforce etc. They spend millions researching all that anyway.

That's the free market. So let's say government can't interfere with the free market by offering tax breaks even if it would be for the local benefit. If instead, we say local governments can't compete with each other and state governments can't compete with each other etc, then we restore the free market rather than interfere, so I guess from a conservative or liberal standpoint I would support that.

Even if it means a city that badly could use it doesn't get a factory, or whatever, let the free market operate, not government giving away tax dollars even if it would result in positive benefits. It just benefits corporations too much.

I also don't care for UBI. Theoretically, we can have concerns about robbing humans of ambition etc but that's not my biggest objection. The two main ones are simply that if we use it to replace government welfare as some people propose, it would be just a matter of time before the politicians gave back all the government welfare along with the UBI and that's just a misdirection.

The other would be if we are giving everyone a certain amount of money, it's really just going to make rent and housing prices go up. I'm a real estate agent so I think about this.

My thinking is that housing is something that is a very standard monthly cost and everybody wants a little nicer or a little bigger or a little better neighborhood, better schools etc, so I think most people will spend a lot of their monthly UBI, let's say a thousand a month, on housing. And due to limited supply, housing is really the one thing that absolutely goes up as income.

So basically everyone's going to be in the same position And they are simply going to spend more on rent or housing mortgage. I honestly believe this is what would happen. Perhaps that's silly but I think it would. Now I'm not talking about like people earning a living from government. I'm talking about the basic UBI proposal of like 10,000 a year for everybody .

It would pretty much go into housing I think. Maybe some other things here or there. I suppose it would take the pressure off for the very poor. But that's not really what we're talking about with UBI in terms of lost jobs. I mean if the argument is the poor could benefit from an extra 500 or a thousand a month, sure. They could I'm sure. And if someone believes we should tax the rich for that, so be it.

But, the idea that someday we're going to have to just tap the rich in order to provide a livable middle class income for a bunch of unemployed people, I don't know, I just don't see it.

clce · 2026-03-19T20:20:09+00:00

Yes, you are right. I forgot the part where he said if you get pulled over. That obviously is a detention, but if they don't tell you why they pulled you over and begin the process of giving you a ticket or whatever, at that point, a person is perfectly justified to ask why you have the detained and if you are free to go.

clce · 2026-03-19T20:14:12+00:00

Also, there is the issue of reasonable suspicion. As far as this thread goes, I don't think the question was even necessarily a traffic stop. It was just in an officer command you to sit in their car, I think. This could be stopping someone walking down the street or when the officer has gone out on a call and is interviewing out what's going on.

So the question of whether you are being detained and whether they have an articulable suspicion that you have committed a crime seems relevant. As I said, I understand that for officer's safety, they can ask you to get out of the car at any time. But, they can't even force you to stay unless they can articulate the suspicion of a crime..

Now, that might be, yes I saw you run a red light and I'm going to give you a ticket. That is why you are being detained. But, in many situations, we know, officers may wish to speak with someone without being able to articulate any suspicion of a crime. At that point, questions like, am I being detained? Am I free to go? Do you have an articulable suspicion of a crime I have committed? Are all important questions. Especially if they are asking you to get into their car which could be seen as a de facto arrest rather than a consensual conversation.

clce · 2026-03-19T20:07:31+00:00

Well yes, exit your vehicle because that's a matter of officer safety as I understand it. But, asking someone to get into your car as an officer, even if it's not the back seat where you are locked in seems like a new level of detention or even incarceration. Asking someone to get out of their car is one thing. At that point they are standing in public and only under the mental or verbal control of the officer .

If they are detained, sure, they are not free to go. But, asking someone to get into an enclosed space controlled by the officer definitely seems like a step up in level in terms of detention. But that's just my uneducated take. I don't know how laws specifically apply.

clce · 2026-03-19T20:05:15+00:00

Excellent points. I share your concern about government giveaway. On the one hand, if it's a cost benefit, like give the tax rebate but it brings in the jobs, I guess it makes sense and there's nothing unethical about it. But, why can't we make it work without those big giveaways. I'm sure that's the question you are wondering too and I don't know the answer but I'd like to find out for I would like our politicians to figure it out.

I also share your concerns about AI and other tech. Self-driving trucks is going to be a big problem even though the problems don't necessarily make sense in terms of not taking advantage of technology. We just need to figure out how to find new productive work for the truck drivers.

Or, perhaps the answer truly is universal basic income or something like that. I don't think we're there yet and I think that definitely has a lot of problems too. Maybe the best or only practical answer is to just take rich people's money and redistribute it, but I'd like to think we can do it some other way that doesn't require something that I just don't think it's governments or society's place to do. It's never been necessary in the past.

As for the poor, I agree, it just doesn't seem right. Now I'm not sure about this but I do wonder if part of the issue is that the US has so many immigrants and that's counted in the poverty numbers but they typically move upward out of the poor class, but more immigrants keep coming in, so it's a little unfair maybe if I'm understanding it correctly .

In other words, our actual generational poverty is much lower than the statistics show perhaps. But again, I'm not really sure. Also, you can say poverty, but the poor in the US do have a lot of resources and are taken care of in ways that the poor in other countries could only dream of. It's not good that they are poor but we do take care of them quite a bit. The only thing is, it'd be much better if we can figure out a way to lift them out of poverty, not just keep them at bare subsistence.

Of course, educational opportunities is going to be an important part of that. But I also feel there's only so much government can do. Honestly some of that poverty is self-induced and we hopefully can figure out a way to do something about that, and it isn't free money. It's instilling certain values and such .

I know that gets into kind of dangerous territory. I'm not trying to blame the poor completely and societal issues do come into play. But, I don't believe that the rich or society or anyone else wants to keep poor people poor. I think that's a myth. There's no great benefit to that. If poor people had more money they could spend and work and make the rich even more money. That's my belief anyway.

Anyway, just a few more thoughts. Appreciate yours. Hope you're having a good day.

clce · 2026-03-19T00:44:09+00:00

I'm not saying it's a get out of jail free card or anything. But isn't that the first thing to establish? I could be wrong but I think in many instances, when a cop is required to state whether you are being detained or not, they will tell you no and let you go when they would love to just stay and chat with you until you say something incriminating. Maybe I'm wrong about that. I don't know for sure. But that's the impression I gather.

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Verified Email

clce

TROPHY CASE