I don’t have an issue with drawing a line. The system isn’t intended to be a personalized evaluation. Such a truly personalized system would be unwieldy and expensive. I just have an issue with the government stepping in and drawing lines which are based not on credit risk factors, but on some [misguided] sense of…

How about a system defined by the creditors based on best approximation of actual credit risk - rather than the arbitrary line in the sand decided by Maxine Waters. I realize Representative Waters is an expert in using her political influence to help her banker husband, but I don’t think she has much insight into…

So the bill won’t prohibit consideration of defaults older than 4 years?

So someone who has never defaulted will be considered the same credit risk as someone who has defaulted (albeit 4 years and a day prior)? Seems fair.

Keep blaming the wrong people. Keep electing the same people who are worsening the problem. And keep insulting those who are pointing out the actual cause of the problem. Just don’t be surprised when the problem continues.

I’m from the government and I’m here to help you. Here, take a bunch of money. But, if you don’t pay it back we’ll allow a bunch of private debt collectors to come after you in ways that are illegal for private debts.

San Francisco and Seattle housing aren’t free markets. That’s the point - which I’m not sure why you are struggling to accept. Free markets in housing allow for additional housing stock to be constructed, and for existing stock to be renovated and expanded. That increase in supply would tend to lower prices.

Are the houses sitting empty? Nope. The investors are putting money into an asset that is being made ARTIFICIALLY scarce (and thus more valuable) because of NIMBYs and government action. Why blame them for responding to market conditions created by the government?

No. It’s a realistic mindset from a country that doesn’t have unlimited resources. Indians aren’t choosing between these cars and a Volvo. They are choosing between these cars and modes of transportation that are likely much less safe.

VERY silly. But, yes surprisingly decent and actually enjoyable. :)

Extra money invested into housing units would tend to increase the supply. But in the case of many big cities, the investors know that the supply is artificially limited by government edict. Which is exactly what makes the investments so desirable.

NYC has increased supply, but not nearly enough. It has the added problem of rent control (in addition to making development so expensive such that only high end properties make economic sense).

I think you meant supply. And the main reason there is a tight supply in places like San Francisco is because of government restrictions on new building and on expansion/renovation of existing housing stock.

Kinda proving my point, aren’t you? People are, in fact judging this movie not simply as a movie, but as a “Statement”. And those people aren’t just the Internet trolls who hate women. A bunch of folks feel it’s “Important” to have the remake with all women.

Clearly they need another Billion or so in Federal money. That should fix things right up.

I don’t particularly care, but it’s silly to ignore that the casting was done as a statement. And a lot of the media responded as such. Just from the first few results of a quick google search.

Are we allowed to mock the people who loudly proclaim it will be AWESOME, simply because they think it’s IMPORTANT that it’s being remade with all women leads?

LOL at “own”. :)

“various slates have worked aggressively to push against the growing numbers of women and people of color appearing on award ballots”

I think we’ve gotten a bit off topic. Unless, of course, you think we should imprison all the Uber execs? :)