I don't disagree with the latter half of that, the line from QBC would be great. But it doesn't have to be a massive increase- a small increase, say 1c/kwh, and then use the proceeds to begin burying everything- start from the outside (rural areas will be easier to do this in and can be done with smaller impact to people trying to get around) and work your way into the cities. 1c/kwh across the entire state will not have a massive effect on each individual's bills, I'm a rather heavy user at 2800KWH and my bill would increase $28, but across the entire state, that adds up quickly.

Not to mention there are federal incentives for burying power lines (because the rest of the country has more or less figured out that burying them vastly improves resiliency against weather) to help offset the cost.

Last I saw it cost around $11500/mi to bury lines- not cheap by any means, but it could be covered in <10 years by a 1c/kwh increase statewide. Additionally, most new construction already has buried lines, no reason not to make that the standard.

> Look at the delivery fees on your electric bill right now and tell me you seriously want them to rebuild the entire infrastructure underground.

Yes please. I'll take a slightly higher light bill and power that rarely ever goes out over a slightly lower one and I lose power a few times a year.

Oh it absolutely can, even the local CU's pay 2-3% of the amount financed, while giving the customer the same rate as if they had walked in the door and picked up a check.

Dan O'brien tried to get rid of the entire F&I department, have the salespeople/sales managers sell the extended warranties and place the loan, and have a centralized location (manchester) do the paperwork via videochat with the customers in an office- ie; Come sit in this office in front of this monitor mister customer, you're going to be videoconferencing with so and so to finalize your paperwork.

The problem with this is an F&I Professional has 3 main priorities, in order of importance: 1: Protect the dealership 2: Ensure all contracts are 'bankable' (ie; you have all of the required stipulations, the contract is properly written, and all required signatures are present) 3: Sell ancillary products (Extended warranty, gap, etc).

Sales Managers only have 1: Sell cars.

So when you have people that come in on a car who have an 850FICO, and are good to go at the quoted $600+ car payment but maybe are on a fixed income of $2000/mo, a sales manager is incentivized to give them a raise. $4000/mo will carry that car payment, they're an 850 so the bank is unlikely to require proof of income, and the customer isn't being misled about what his car payment will be, so why not?

An F&I person who takes their job seriously will catch that, put a stop to it, and ensure that it never happens again. A "loan closing specialist" who's only job is to sign paperwork, not only won't catch that, they're likely inexperienced enough that they don't even know to look for it. An F&I job is easily 6 figures, I've been doing it about 5 years, and my first year, which was also my worst year, was $165,000. So short sighted dealers will start to question if that role is really worth it, because hell, a good salesman can convince someone to take a warranty along with the car, so why am I paying this guy tons of money to do that? Dealers with more years in operation or who have been burned by overly aggressive/fraudulent sales managers never question it. Because yeah, I'm expensive. But not having someone like me is even more expensive.

Any dealer that doesn't have in house F&I people should be avoided at all costs. Don't get me wrong there are plenty of bad f&I people that will take advantage of uneducated buyers. But on the whole, most of them take the compliance aspect of their career VERY seriously.

Had more than one customer come to the dealership I work at with a story about how the dealer convinced them to sign for a payment several hundred more per month than they could afford, but don't worry because if they stop on on their due date every month they'll give them a voucher for the difference.

Those were always heartbreaking because they were desperate for help but more often than not there's nothing I could do.

Don't get me wrong I am a firm believer in people taking responsibility for their own actions, but holy shit you've got to be a special kind of scumbag to lie like that.

NH dealers are some of the most transparent and least scummy dealers I've ever been exposed to, been in the industry 15 years, AK,TX,MS,NH,VT. The NH/VT dealers I've been to are by FAR the best.

By comparison when I was in Houston, a fine like this wouldn't even make the news.

Right? Been waiting for years for this. They offered me a role repeatedly despite my refusal- even after telling them its because I value my reputation too much.

In winter I spend almost $1k/mo on propane. Now that the electricity rates have gotten insane, I spend $700/mo on electricity. You're damn right I'm eyeballing super efficient replacements for several older items in my home.

> Hell, my inlaws still have have some 40 year old appliances that aren't dead, and they're not buying.

See for me this is one area I don't skimp in- I don't run out and buy frequently, but with the cost of energy what it is I'm side-eyeing my old boiler, my washer/dryer, etc and crunching numbers on how long it would have to last to break even on a replacement.

> you can still make it legal for recreational use without touching that side of the sales part

You can, but they don't want to, not because of wanting to keep people criminals, but because they want to capture the profit from sales. It's all about the money here. The state want to be the sole retail distributor in NH, just like they are for liquor.

If the liquor is not sold for cost, then it's taxed. They just call it profit rather than tax.

> And you’re flat out wrong, it is a conspiracy to not change immoral laws to benefit police/prison lobbies.

Yeah no... in NH it's straight up because they want to control the means of sale just like they do in Alcohol, but doing so is risky on an item that is federally illegal.

Right now it would be suicide. The debates would be like chess with a pidgeon, and there's no way they come out looking good to the independents. Hard core right winger's would get the soundbites, despite having nothing of substance to say, by basically being outrageous. This will inflame their base "because they're just like us", and the independents would focus on the fact that the democrat isn't getting as many 'gotcha' points as the republican, despite the republican not focusing on any viable policy. When you have 2 people debating actual policy, then the people can make an informed decision.

The path we're on now will get herbert mountain dew camacho in the fucking presidency in a few years.

> because if people had to vote on policy and governance rather than fear, the Democrats would have gotten slaughtered this cycle.

They have to vote based on candidates, and 100% the democrats did everything they could to help the nutters on the right, the voters still selected them in the primaries. If the republicans stopped supporting the nutters, and the party itself actually did everything they could to distance themselves from Trump, it would die out and the democrats wouldn't be able to leverage it nearly as effectively.

You're exactly right that as long as Trumpism remains a thing democrats don't have to run on policy. They just have to run on "not affiliated with or endorsed by Trump" to win elections in the majority of the country.

It's a goddamn shame too, because when there's legitimate, spirited debate about whats best for the country, we all win. But when half the government is too busy shouting about how trump got robbed and the democrats want kids to be able to use litter boxes in schools, and the other half is spending more time pointing out the idiocy than they are governing, we're all being fucked.

Over a minor traffic violation? Send the bill, if they don't pay it, escalate the fine and send it to collections.

It's a traffic violation, I don't care if it's 50 years overdue there shouldn't be bail.

I mean... with some mental gymnastics you could argue they were- funds that ostensibly would have gone to taxable items in NH (such as fast food) were instead redirected to another state improperly.

I disagree about not being needed, I think they absolutely still have their place, as it's not just about wages.

This is honestly where the union issues start to lose me. Like I support collective bargaining and the right of the workers to strike- putting more power in the hands of the workers is undeniably a good thing. BUT those workers don't have an inalienable right to that job. If they all collectively walk off, it might make business sense to come back to the negotiating table and work something out, but maybe it makes sense to let them all go and start over. I don't agree with forcing the business to retain them.