Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Selling Your Home under Crap and Trade




(4 votes) (report abuse)
|
To Whoever Gave this Topic a One-Star Rating
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (4 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
| When we lack words for a good rebuttal, our argument is so weak we don't know what to say, sometimes all one can do is give a one star rating. How pitiful. | |
|
I Find it Remarkable
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (3 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
| I find it remarkable that no one has any comments to make concerning this very, very bad legislation. Perhaps none of you owns your own home, so you don't think it's of any concern to you. This will put owning a home of your own even further out of reach - but perhaps that doesn't concern you either! It seems some are prepared to accept whatever lifestyle the government deems them worthy of. So if you live like rats packed close together in little cracker boxes, it's okay with you. After all, the government knows what's best for you and what you're worthy of living in. In the meantime, I'm sure our government officials, of course, are worthy of much more, paid for with your taxes, of course. | |
|
RE: I Find it Remarkable
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (1 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
| I listened to part of the congressional debate on this on CSPAN and they pretty much confirmed what has been discussed here... that Rep. Waxman inserted an amendment that created a national building code that will supersede all state building codes. They also indicated that California's building code is the model, as it is one of the toughest in the country. I didn't catch the whole gist of the discussion, but I had the impression that, if you want to sell your home, you would have to bring your house up to these codes before you could sell it. In normal times, a plan like this would create a national uproar. But because it is buried in amongst so much other crazy stuff, it isn't getting any attention. As soon as Americans find out about it, though, I have to imagine it will be a dead duck. If Tester votes for it, he'll have a lot of 'splaining to do when he runs for reelection. | ||
|
Ms Beagle
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (3 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
Perhaps if you provided a link to the article we could read it in its entirety and then be able to comment. Just a thought. Never mind, here it is in all of its glory. http://www.examiner.com/x-13430-Sarpy-County-Conservative-Ex Ms. Beagle, this is an opinion piece, no more, no less. |
|
|
RE: Ms Beagle
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (2 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
| I suppose he lied about the mandate? Just made that up, huh? "Opinion piece" -maybe, but even opinion pieces can contain facts. Show me where this madate is not a fact. P.S. - You don't own a home, do you? | ||
|
Own a home, me?
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (1 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
Nah, I own about 1/2 and the bank owns about 1/2. If I thought you were open to a rational discussion, I would point out the many benefits of building homes that are 30% more energy efficient but I think you would confuse the label 30% more energy efficient with 30% more expensive. There is really no point in trying to discuss anything with you. Peace |
|
|
RE: Own a home, me?
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (2 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
| There is really no point in trying to discuss anything with you! You need to go back and read the article more carefully. I am not against making a home more energy efficient per say. And I am more than familiar with the construction industry, having worked in it. It would be silly to say that 30% energy efficient = 30% more expensive. However, I can tell you that it is the initial costs that can be quite high, and that it takes time to get a return on your investment. What this article is getting at are the people who cannot afford to do all the energy efficient updates that will be required by this provision BEFORE they can even sell their home! What about old folks living on a fixed income, for example, that are hit with a medical catastrophe, or simply find that they must downsize because their fixed income can no longer provide for them to be able to live in their current home? Why should the government be able to intrude and insist they spend all kinds of money to upgrade their home before they sell? As it is now, people are free to make deals in which they can sell a home which may need things done to it, "fixer-uppers", to people who have the money and are willing to do what needs to be done. It is highly unfair and highly intrusive for government to dictate to people what they can do with their own property and how they must spend their money. Many people are barely able to buy a home as it is, and many have bought homes and have just been able to stay in them without being able to fix them up much, if at all. But with the government intruding, there will be more people who will not get the chance to even pursue the American dream of owning their own home. The government will see to it that it is too expensive. I'd rather own my own shack, even, than live where the government tells me to live. | ||
|
Going Green with Cap and Trade!
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (1 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
A group calling itself the Tax Foundation has made a video with a catchy tune (slightly reminiscent of the Schoolhouse Rock series that ABC aired in the late 70s and 80s.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Si-htSSHxsE |
|
|
ROL, You Should Watch this Video
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (0 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
| ROL, cap and trade will touch more than just our homes and being able to sell and/or buy a home. You need to watch this video. Maybe then you'll get it. | |
|
The government is evil
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (0 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
|
According to you that sums up everything in life. Peace. |
|
|
RE: The government is evil
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (0 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
| Now that's just a weird statement, ROL. It might be more accurate to say that government is a necessary evil - that needs to be watched and kept in check. | ||
|
own a home
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (0 votes)
(report abuse)
(reply) |
| Isn't this whole thing talking about "new construction?" This is not going to affect the avg. joe selling the house they bought in 1999. | |
|
RE: own a home
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (0 votes)
(report abuse)
|
|
| Not from what I understand. It's about anyone's home. I haven't read about old homes being exempt. Makes me wonder about homes that have been historically renovated, or places like the Story Mansion - will they have to be brought up to this code? New places, fine. That's happening anyway with LEEDS and so forth. But again, as this article points out, this ought to concern people, especially people who live in older homes, may be older themselves and living on fixed incomes. Perhaps they've lived a relatively modest or even poor life by some standards, but do own their home. The sale of their home may be the only thing to keep them afloat should they find themselves needing the money. If they have to spend a pile of money to bring it up to code before they can even sell it, what will they do? They will lose their home. But of course the government will step in and they can finish out their lives in a government-owned crackerbox and be greatful. | ||