kapkomet

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 31, 2010 -> 05:32 PM) yes his administration did BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT!

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 31, 2010 -> 05:18 PM) What are you talking about with serfs. I'm just messing around. I'll stop now, especially since you were really gracious in our previous conversations (no Kaperbole ™ ).

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 31, 2010 -> 02:07 PM) When the time is right, I'll ask her about it again. And that'll be soon. Just don't let it be something that you "wait" for a while. It's something you have to work out and quick, or you're going to get stomped twice as hard later on. If you get through the difficult conversations now, it was meant to be anyway. It's tough, Blake. Hang in there. Just make sure that you're not suppressing your own doubts because it feels good (or, that is to say, doesn't feel tough).

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 31, 2010 -> 03:47 PM) serfs didn't get paychecks. I know. I sit around and wait for yours, and the promises of equality for everyone, while it never happens. I just don't get it. I'm waiting for my government to take care of me, and none of you want to support me in my efforts. What to do, what to do...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2010 -> 12:10 PM) Federal laws would absolutely apply. It's all a question of how intensely they're enforced. Every so often the Feds under Bush would arrest a few 70 year old medical marijuana users in every state where that was legal just to make a point. It's crazy! Man, I sooo agree. Everything bad and wrong occured under BUSHIE. That asshole prick has wrecked everything for Obama. In 100 years, it'll still be that asshole George W. Bush. I can't believe how he destroyed the country so and made all the little people bow down to his wishes, just to make points just like the one above! Wow... I just can't believe it. What a dick he was.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2010 -> 12:11 PM) Sadly, basic economics tells us that this is exactly what a "Spending freeze" up against the zero interest rate bound would do. Cool! Just give me your paycheck. I'm a serf in the serfdom. GIMMEEEE!

Why can't you people just hand me your paycheck? Let's get the middle man out of the equation.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 30, 2010 -> 08:22 AM) Why do we, as a country, waste our time outlawing a plant? Because it promotes liberalism thinking? I kid, I kid.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 12:40 PM) The full election results have to be 100% certified and signed by everyone in the state. That's the Al Franken standard, if you'll recall. It takes time to count up absentee ballots, to get all of the signatures, etc. They better pass that health care!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 01:01 PM) Yup, that's what happens when you go from needing a cloture vote on 1/3 of your Senate votes to on every vote that doesn't benefit the banks. Evil f***ing profits. Ban the market system before it's too late. "Government Saves".

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 10:52 AM) The increased GDP being heavy in retail and wholesale inventory buildups, seems to be in line with the NABE reading we saw a few days ago. It seems like businesses are anticipating growth, this is another sign of that. Actually, no. For several reasons. First one is you've got a bubble on the automotive side. Second, inventories were at a really low level after 1Q2009... and is still low comparable to "normal" times. It's just a replenishment - and you won't see real growth spending if the stuff keeps up like it is.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 11:43 AM) Actually, he never said that. Christina Romer authored a report as Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers. The report forecasted the recession to reach peak unemployment of 9% in 2010. The report said that unemployment would peak in 2009 with a stimulus act at around 8.5% But the forecast did have a very interesting footnote to it. http://www.politifact.org/truth-o-meter/st...ama-promised-s/ Oh, Romer said it. So that means he gets a free pass because his administration is saintly.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 11:45 AM) This is because the liberal system has no idea what to do. They're the better party at pointing a finger and saying "oh! oh! you messed up! you're awful! I can't believe you did that!" But when it comes down to actually coming up with a solution/answer, they have no unified goal. They have differing philosophies that the inner circle can't agree on. Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Obama - none of them want the same thing, and none agree with each other on the best solution to any problem. Hell, they can't even agree on what issue is most important at any given time. As unintelligent as everyone wants to paint the Repubs, at least they have (generally, on important issues) a unified vision of their principles. They just have a hard time communicating that message to the masses. Exactly.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 10:18 AM) Google and my memory say no, he didn't - but feel free to point it out if I am missing it. I obviously can't know everything he said, but that is a pretty stupid thing to say, and I'd be surprised if he went and said we wouldn't go above some specific number that way. That was the whole point of the "stimulus" and PASS IT NOW back then, was to make sure unemployment didn't exceed 8%.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 10:09 AM) I'm sure you're going to blame the government, but I'll bite, what's your answer? Of course I am. Because it's true. How is the fee structures set up? How much regulation is tied to how they do it? What is the medicare usual and customary fee schedule for? How are reimbursement rates determined? What's the competetive value of regulation? What happens when you cannot offer a plan that has some scalability because of having to operate (at least) 50 companies within different states? Etc.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 09:53 AM) Oh wait... he never said that. Yes he did.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 10:06 AM) So if I'm understanding this correctly, basically your argument is that costs should be controlled better in the case of private insurance, but that actually doesn't happen. Thus, we wind up with the situation where we currently are in; costs aren't controlled and health outcomes aren't improved. Why is this? Hint: it's not about "profits".

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 08:00 AM) The campaign promise itself was basically meaningless as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't matter to me whether or not a person hired has worked for a lobbyist if they're qualified for the job; they certainly know the policy if they've been lobbying on it. The question is always the actual policies and the currently active lobbying. Yet, if this were a republican, you'd be screaming about it.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 08:33 AM) How is that exactly? I know you all are looking at this through a prism that says they get a boondoggle by a mandate that people must get insurance. But, they're not going to get insurance like it is today, they're going to get an exchange based insurance program - which by definition in the bill insurance companies will lose money over time. Especially if they are taxed 40% because said programs are "cadillac plans"... which means they will be forced to offer programs that are not profitable. Oh, now there's that evil word. Keep in mind that "profits" for insurance companies are some of the lowest in industry by percentage, and would go much lower once the effects of the bill go into fruition - over time, to the point where they would just become Fannie and Freddie, which is the goal. As has been said many many times, it's not that there needs to be reform, it's that there needs to be reform that doesn't eliminate the market over time, and that's what the (current) bills do.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 10:34 PM) Ideally I want single payer, I find myself rooting and calling and writing for a bill significantly less than that, who ushers in millions of new healthy clients into the insurance industry. That is in fact listening to the other side. You think that the you don't have to compromise to be listened to. That's not how you govern a republic of 300 million. All you wanted to do is open up competition across state lines...that doesn't go nearly far enough to cover or compress costs...so yeah, if people who actually want to solve a problem and you have people who don't, the people who don't will get left out of the process, but their insight was CLEARLY there in the crafting of the bill, to say otherwise is retarded. If you have the ability to pass something with broad appeal, you do that, they tried, the other side was just stalling and trying to kill it in their nihilist view of government, so they mmoved on. That doesn't make republicans shunned, they could jump in at any time if they promised that if they got some of what they wanted they would vote for it. They won't, theyll get some of what they want and then not vote for it. SO f*** them. The problem is, you and others make this too simplistic. Forget the lobby money and the industry for a little bit - long enough to understand that one of the primary reason for the increase of costs is government itself. And yes, I said PRIMARY, not secondary. There's a lot of usual and customary fees tied to the medicare standard. Then, it's adjusted by contractual obligation down to some sort of pay scale to the physicians. Because the government has a heavy hand in regulating the base fees being charged, you get a skewed pricing index. That's a large problem. Now on to the government side. As I've said before and just get ignored and shunned because I'm a "republican shrill"... *gag* ... the whole damn bill is a "public option" because it sets the marketplace for insurance. It doesn't do ANYTHING to actually control costs. It just regulates the s*** out of the industry to back it into a corner that the government gets control. I know you all don't see it that way because you didn't get a specific, single payor government intervention (aka, the savior to all costs and health care issues... which in reality is a disaster because you destroy all supply and demand tencendcies in such an environment). The GOVERNMENT should not have say over a population like this. I know you all see it different, and it's a great "equalizing issue" and a "utopia" where everyone should be afforded the same rights, rules, and regulations to health care, but it's just not that simple, and people don't want what's a pretty damn good system taken away and a government plan shoved up their ass in its place. The people are speaking REALLY loudly about it, and yet, the liberal elite seem to know best. Some negotiations. And again, thanks for sticking to your point. I don't mind seeing this as your point of view at all.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 08:48 PM) Kap, if the point is that you think that since the dems has 60 sens that they can't complain about anything, that's fine. I think it's stupid because it's completely ignoring very conservative senators. But the fact that just because they have sixty you can accuse them of not having tried to get some republican senators is really inane. They clearly did. They wasted 4 mos. doing it even when it was clear grassley would never vote on it, and even when he stated that yes, he did have an impact on that baucus bill that is so clearly the senate's bill at this point. They clearly tried to court snowe and collins, and snowe, who said she could commit to a triggered PO, is not even going to vote for a billl without any PO at all. And you want me to believe that no, the dems didn't reach out to the GOP at all. it's clearly false. And in the climate change negotiations, when sens. like Graham and McCain who so clearly agreed with climate change legislation before now say they are adamently against it, you can again claim the democrats clearly never reached out to GOp. But there are two sides. And one side is committed to not even trying to legislate, and do whatever they can to reduce the senate to a halt. They've said as much. But yet you seem intent on pushing this memo that the dems are just pushing this radical leftist legislation, when the hard progressives have shown willing to compromise A LOT to pass something to help the situation. So yeah, I find your comments stupid, especially when you are pushing them in the dem thread. Here's the deal. Yea, they courted Grassley and Snowe. And then they did whatever the hell they wanted anyway. They close doors, they are transparent as a 10,000 foot rock of granite (maybe even Balta will get that one... ), they stiffarm everyone, and then on top of that, Obama spends 80% of his speech last night talking about how the culture needs to change, yet, blasts everyone who doesn't think just like he does. You people have your head so far up your point of view that you never even want to consider anyone else. You know, the "big tent" theory, when in reality, it doesn't exist. BOTH parties are pulled to their radical sides, and frankly, Obama is one of the radicals. None of you want to admit it because then it shows your political spectrum as being far left instead of mainstream. So, let's all hail our radical president, because otherwise it's not fair, and it's not "reaching out" unless you agree with him. And, seriously, your post is a good post, I just totally disagree.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 12:02 AM) Thanks for elevating the discussion. Stay classy, kap. I'm just more direct then our pal bmags, who wants to have the veiled little comments. So yea, I'm classy, and direct.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 03:53 PM) Wow, so things that banks like get to pass on 50 votes. I know, this country f***ing sucks.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jan 27, 2010 -> 11:23 PM) I only saw bits and pieces, but Obama kinda shat on everyone today. Democrats and Republicans. Can't say I agreed with his whole speech, but I was sorta impressed at how much he came off like an insult comic at times. Again, he was campaigning. It's all the man knows how to do. "CHANGE". Yea, ok. "Words, just words". That's about all.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Jan 27, 2010 -> 10:35 PM) These would be a lot more watchable if they told congress to keep their buts in their seats until the speech is over. Its the same thing no matter who is president. Whatever party the president is in, spends half the time jumping up and clapping like they never heard of such awesomeness. The other side has a grumpy look on their face. This years mini-SOTU that the republicans ran afterwards was stupid as well. Nancy Pelosi had some sort of facial tick thing going on. That was scary. She is due for another botox injection, probably.