Jpowors

Not the new Donald Trump Presidency thread

41,144 posts in this topic

4 minutes ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

No, it's a federal thing. Basically, if you have a Conventional Loan to start, you signed docs that said they would drop it after 78% of the Principle Balance is paid. So if you took out a loan for $100k, when you hit $78k, they have to drop it. That's why if you look at your Loan Estimate from when you applied, you'll see Month 1-78 you'll pay $xxx and months 78 - 360 you'll pay $YYY.

Where that differs is when you buy a house for $100k, Zillow says it's worth $150k. They won't drop it then. Also, if you get a FHA/VA/Bond loan, you can't get out of PMI/Funding Fee unless you refi to a conventional with <80% LTV (Loan To Value), since those forms are "Life of the Loan".

 

Most people start with a FHA (I did), then refi to a Conventional when the interest rates make sense.

So you're saying I originally had an FHA loan and am just now getting a conventional one? Not that it matters, I'm just happy to be done with PMI. I'm just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, GEORGIAfan said:

Can someone explain to me why a Climate Debate is a good idea. I agree that it is an extremely important issue that should be discussed, but no one in the top 10 disagrees with that. What would you be debating. 

"no one ... disagrees with that" in the sense that now, at least, they'll all say "it's really important."  But how?  How is it important?  As the comprehensive all consuming threat/issue multiplier it is?  As a third tier environmental issue?  Purely from a social/environmental justice angle?  Classes and jobs?  How will you address it? With cap and trade, command and control, a tax, a combination, policy planning, none of the above?  How does it impact military operations, infrastructure planning, etc.?

An actual debate on it is hugely important and would illuminate why it is not just another issue, it is the issue that will affect all others in the coming decades.

AF89 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep her and her family in your thoughts and prayers whichever is your way.  Pancreatic cancer is such a terrible thing. I lost an aunt to it, it is one of the most aggresive and quick moving cancers.  I know she beat it once I hope she is able to do so again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The market could tank and MAGA will absolve trump if any wrongdoing.  He takes literally o responsibility for anything he does.  If it works, it’s his doing.  if it doesn’t, it’s someone else’s fault.  Every single time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, thesouphead said:

 

I actually believe Serge's theory on this one. He's just acting out to make people think he's dumb. But the impetus is not some Grand Scheme. He wants people to think he's dumb because he knows that he is not dumb. It gives him self-satisfaction of  "being right" even though it's a contrived deluded way to generate self-esteem. He's not right in the head.

Big_Dog likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

When the economy is the only thing keeping you on office, probably best not to turn a heavy drop into a punchline for a joke.  

Well, itll be made into a, well the whole worlds economy went into recession, theres nothing he could do and it would have been worse with out him.  Watch and see

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HMFIC said:

Climate change is not even an issue, it's  a huge hoax , concocted by Al Gore as part of a failed Tax scheme for the Democrat Party to waste more of our tax money.  For the last thousand years or so, weather has been cyclical, up and down.  Just because you have herded up some scientists who only get research grants if they agree on climate change, that doesn't mean it is real........except to the tax loving leftists.

dvwUY0C3CCV.jpg

Door Gunner likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

When the economy is the only thing keeping you on office, probably best not to turn a heavy drop into a punchline for a joke.  

The economy is not why he won in 2016... how is it keeping him in office? He won't be impeached because of a recession...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HMFIC said:

Climate change is not even an issue, it's  a huge hoax , concocted by Al Gore as part of a failed Tax scheme for the Democrat Party to waste more of our tax money.  For the last thousand years or so, weather has been cyclical, up and down.  Just because you have herded up some scientists who only get research grants if they agree on climate change, that doesn't mean it is real........except to the tax loving leftists.

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sn4tteRBoxXeR said:

The economy is not why he won in 2016... how is it keeping him in office? He won't be impeached because of a recession...

The economy is the only thing keeping his approval numbera from being historically low

Leon Troutsky likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, HMFIC said:

Climate change is not even an issue, it's  a huge hoax , concocted by Al Gore as part of a failed Tax scheme for the Democrat Party to waste more of our tax money.  For the last thousand years or so, weather has been cyclical, up and down.  Just because you have herded up some scientists who only get research grants if they agree on climate change, that doesn't mean it is real........except to the tax loving leftists.

 

So, I'd like to take a moment and use this Gish Gallop as a prompt for all the non-lunatics in this thread.

The first thing I'd that to address is the claim that climate change is "a huge hoax, concocted by Al Gore."  The science underlying our understanding of climate change goes back almost 200 years to Joseph Fourier, a french polymath who, using very basic calculations, figured out that given its distance from the sun, the Earth should not be as warm as it is.  He proposed that something in the atmosphere was keeping it warmer than it should be, and first described what we now refer to as the "greenhouse" effect (though he did not call it that).  It then proceeded in the 1860s with John Tyndall who, through his experiments, showed that many of the gases in our atmosphere, including water vapor and CO2, are capable of blocking infrared radiation from escaping back to space.  In the late 1890s, Svante Arrhenius calculated the effect of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere (really, he calculated the effect of halving it) and suggested that man could, through its additions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, increase the global average temperature.  He wasn't worried about it, mind you, but his calculations have held up remarkably well: about 3.5 degrees centigrade for a doubling of CO2 (which is right in the range projected by much more advanced modeling). 

The science lay dormant for awhile until the 1930s when Guy Callendar revived it, saying it may already be happening. The 1950s then produced significant research - much funded by the Office of Naval Research - that contributed to our knowledge, from scientists like Gilbert Plass, Roger Revelle, and Charles Keeling (who gave us the Keeling Curve). Gilbert Plass's seminal article, The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change, is the first time "climate change" or "climatic change" appeared in the scientific literature, that we know of.  In the 1960s, President Johnson's Science Advisory Committee presented a report to him with a section on CO2 warming, noting that the continued increase in CO2 in the atmosphere would "modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to such an extent that marked changes in climate, not controllable through local or even national efforts, could occur."  Rudimentary general circulation models (GCMs) were first developed to simulate the atmosphere in the 1960s and 1970s.

In the 1970s, Wally Broecker published his seminal article Climatic Change: Are We On The Brink Of A Pronounced Global Warming.  It was the first time that "global warming" appeared in the literature, that we know of.  In 1979, the National Academy of Science, in a report for the president, found it "highly credible" that doubling CO2 would bring an additional 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius of warming, noting that "a wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late."  The World Climate Program was launched. The majority of articles in the literature predicted warming, the second larger portion was neutral, and a very small portion predicted cooling, mainly based on aerosols that we subsequently addressed successfully.  Despite a couple mainstream articles, the scientific community was not predicting a new ice age.

In the 1980s, modeling increased significantly, and in the late 1980s, the IPCC - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - was formed.

This is a very minimized, brief recap of the basic science. There is significantly more to the story both in the decades described and after.

 

The second thing I'd like to address is this: "For the last thousand years or so, weather has been cyclical, up and down."

First of all, no, it has not been cyclical globally. Second of all, what does that even mean?  What is the cause of this supposedly steady "up and down"?  Are we just to assume that mother Gaia is acting to keep things in order? Is there some reason it is going up and down at a global level over time?  Why is it not actually present in any of our global reconstructions? Why would that be the case given what we do know about planetary physics/chemistry and the various forcings and feedbacks that operate on this planet? Why would anyone feel comfortable saying this knowing that it would rely on scientific reconstructions of temperature from times before record measurements, while still decrying the scientists who would have presumably provided this information?

 

 

This has been your bi-annual climate change information update.

Edited by Lou Getchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, falconsd56 said:

The economy is the only thing keeping his approval numbera from being historically low

I don't think so man. If the economy goes south, he and Republicans will just blame it on "conditions, external factors" and "globalization" or "immigrants."  Nobody (figurative) that's not a Republican or "Fierce Independent" supports him. He can only be blamed for a recession in so much as he has no plan to address one if it does occur and his trade war isn't helping. So, who exactly would he lose if the Economy goes south? Nobody significant IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now