StrangeSox

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 02:41 PM) Did you just try to compare IL to IN when it comes to politics? Leave this thread. Illinois occasionally elects Republicans to state-wide offices, it's not some sign-of-the-times when a Republican wins. Before Obama won in 2006, a Republican held his US Senate seat and now Mark Kirk holds it again. Illinois is still going to overwhelmingly vote (D) for President come 2016 (barring some unforeseen major events).

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 02:38 PM) Who cares about Christie. This coming election is coming down to our US Monarchy: Hillary Clinton vs Jeb Bush. Book it.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 02:31 PM) When a Republican can win a major election in IL, you know the party is losing peoples attention. "When a Democrat can win Indiana, you know the party is losing peoples attention"

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 02:12 PM) Bingo. I get that turnout was low and that favors the GOP in midterms, but overrall the number of Dems/Repubs in an election is basically the same. It's the independents that will swing major contests. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "the number of Dems/Reps," but as far as seats up for election, there were far more Dem Senators up than Rep senators. And in off-year elections, far, far fewer democratic voters turn out as well (that's something Democrats desperately need to solve if they don't want these cycles to happen all the time). "Independent" voters, who may refuse to identify with a particular party but almost always still have some sort of strong partisan lean and reliably vote one way or the other, don't bother much at all in off-years. Yeah but historically Democratic voters just don't show up that well in non-presidential years. Typically lackluster campaigns by Democrats is definitely part of that, but I don't see any reason to think that 2014 is some sign of Democratic voters not showing up in 2016 any more than 2010 was a sign about America being sick of those progressives and ready to throw that bum out of the White House. The only time I can remember the Democrats having a good mid-term was 2006, and there was a major confluence of crap that contributed to that (Iraq/Afghanistan, slowing economy, Katrina, six years of Bush already). e.g. this is from 2010, but it illustrates that Republicans generally express a higher interest in mid-term elections than Democrats, and "independents" express the lowest.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 02:04 PM) Charcoal Weber for me Then there's no question

Yes, but you live in Indiana. You always should have been paying tax on Amazon etc. items, it's just that nobody ever did.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 12:51 PM) I slow cook them in the oven at 200 degrees for about 4-5 hours. and baste them every couple hours with a apple cider vinegar/oil/chili powder mix. Then I finish them on the grill with sauce(usually sweet baby rays). If i had a smoker i would use it, but i dont. I want a big green egg really bad though You can smoke on a gas grill! This website is amazing for all things BBQ.

I don't think pointing out the big disadvantages the Democrats faced in 2014 and pointing out that even considering those disadvantages, the Democrats got their asses handed to them is arguing both sides.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 01:47 PM) It would be interesting to see an actual breakdown of it, but really it's all part of a larger "college benefits reform" proposal. I'd also imagine that, for most middle-class people, the actual average account balances would be just as low if not lower than 401(k) average balances, so $10k total in tax credits ($2.5k x 4) might actually be worth far more than the tax on capital gains. And it'd still be tax-deferred, so your money would grow tax-free for 15-18 years. So the average account balance in 2013 was slightly under $20k. There's not exactly going to be a lot of capital gains taxes on that at deferment. Two things that complicate the "average" balance in this case is that 529's didn't exist until the 90's and didn't get their current tax-exempt-for-college-disbursements status until 2001, so that's only 12 years of plans really being incentivized. Still, most of the middle class doesn't really have that much extra at the end of every month to dump into a 529 plan whereas the upper-middle class and upper class do. I think ptact's mentioned it before, but basically public university total costs have remained flat, but who pays what portion has dramatically shifted over the last few decades. For the student, public schools were pretty damn cheap until the 90's or early 00's or so, with state funding providing a bulk of the revenue (heck, the UC system was entirely free for state residents!). But states have been cutting more and more funding for schools, which pushes tuition higher and higher.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 01:48 PM) You really think the dems got smoked? The underlying numbers based on voter turnout were TERRIBLE for the GOP going forward. The GOP has their largest majority in almost a century or something like that. Democrats lost just about every contestable seat and couldn't even manage to beat Sam "I've single-handily destroyed Kansas" Brownback for governor.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 01:47 PM) I mean I love the positivity here, but the democrats just got smoked in the last election. Yeah, and there's two important reasons for that. Mid-year elections are lower turnout and stronger for Republicans, and there was the huge wave of Democrats elected in 2008 coming up in the Senate. They had a ton of seats to defend while the Republicans only had a couple that could even be considered contestable. That won't hold true in 2016. Republicans might still hold both houses of Congress, but they're almost guaranteed to lose seats (short of some catastrophic, unexpected event or something).

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 01:45 PM) Off topic but if you looking at a college saving plan I would suggest the College Illinois plan. It gives you the current tuition price for when they go to college. You pay over 10 years and it's a great benefit. We paid 43,000 over 10 years for my daughter and she will go to an out of state school and they are paying 19,000 a year for her during this year. My boss just locked this in for his son.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 01:41 PM) I would hope the earnings in a 529 plan for 15-18 years is more than a $2,500 tax credit! It would be interesting to see an actual breakdown of it, but really it's all part of a larger "college benefits reform" proposal. I'd also imagine that, for most middle-class people, the actual average account balances would be just as low if not lower than 401(k) average balances, so $10k total in tax credits ($2.5k x 4) might actually be worth far more than the tax on capital gains. And it'd still be tax-deferred, so your money would grow tax-free for 15-18 years.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 01:39 PM) but we'll make gains in congress as well. That has more to do with presidential/non-presidential election years and what Senate seats will be up than anything.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 01:33 PM) Yeah there were some clauses in there I agreed with, extended the coverage age, pre-existing conditions, etc. but that doesn't mean the whole law is good. And if it does fail in 10 years you all obviously have your built in excuse: it wasn't expansive enough to actually work! It's not the program I ultimately want and it fails right off the bat at accomplishing what I'd like (truly universal healthcare access), but it isn't designed to do that. I don't expect the ACA reforms to fail, and if their are failures I don't think a "not expansive enough" argument would really even make sense. It's a different argument from say the boosting the recovery with strong fiscal policy argument because that's simply an $X dollars argument.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 12:09 PM) That's a subscriber only article, what's the jist of it? Why does he want to cut those benefits? Isn't it a good thing that people set aside money for college tax free? It's apparently part of a larger plan to simplify the numerous college credits/deductions/incentives that are out there. The money saved from this change would be used to expand the American Opportunity Tax Credit, which provides a tax credit of up to $2,500. The growth inside of a 529 would still be tax-deferred, but you would pay taxes upon disbursement so there's still some incentive to use the plan. Per an "administration official," the 80% of the current 529 plan benefits go to households making $250k or more. You can eliminate that benefit and shift it to something that more heavily favors the middle class, like the AOTC seems to do. You're just shifting the incentives/federal funding from one type of program to another that might be better at what you're trying to accomplish.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 01:23 PM) For a small minority of people. It did nothing to lower costs for the remaining 80% of the country that aren't using it. We'll see if the promises that it will effect the entire system ever comes true (not likely). Correlation versus causation, but the growth in all plans, not just Exchange plans, has been slowing since the bill started kicking in. Plus there's a lot of things that effect lots of people who had employer-based coverage before such as allowing children to stay on a plan until 26.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 12:46 PM) I'm on the drug called "facts" and yes, sadly it's true that facts tend to skew left. - Obama care was gutted BECAUSE of compromise with Repubs, in order to get it passed. The original legislation was a much, much better program. And the point I was making is not that it's perfect, but that it's the first step in creating something that is much better. Sadly the GOP doesn't WANT to make it better, because a better health care plan isn't what their lobbyists want. The original house bill was more expansive, but the House bill never stood a chance of getting all 60 Democratic votes in the Senate.

My parents still use AAA. Last winter, instead of sending them through the nice, relatively easy Eisenhower Tunnel up to Keystone, they sent them through the Loveland Pass. They were driving up around 1AM due to delayed flights, and it was in the middle of a blizzard. They made it maybe 1/2 of a mile up the road before getting stuck twice and almost sliding off the side of a mountain.

Enacting their agenda could mean repealing things as well if you're of the mindset that there aren't important things for the government to do.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 22, 2015 -> 04:49 PM) I actually like that there is a mixed government. Honestly the only part of that I'd change is the absurd 60-vote rule in the Senate, which I'd love to see go away. Can you expand on why? I haven't thought about it too deeply, but I think I'd much prefer a parliamentary system where an elected party can actually enact the agenda it was elected on. Our current system has so many roadblocks and veto points that politicians are never really held accountable for what they do or don't do. They can always just blame "obstruction."

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 22, 2015 -> 03:01 PM) I'm sick of the pissing contest...well we could do it if the other side would...we would do it if the other side would. At some point, cut the s*** and lets at least enact the stuff the general public wants that makes sense. Obama has failed miserably at working with the other party and yes the Repubs have failed too in this regard. They both get fat F's for this but I put more onus on the president as he is one person vs. say congress. Specifically on climate change, I'll just point out that Senator James Inhofe, the newly appointed chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, made his very first point of business after receiving the gavel to go on a rant about how climate change is a hoax. There's no "working with the other side" when a substantial number of the other side believes in all sorts of conspiracy theories and doesn't even think the issue is a real issue. That's not a technocrat difference on the policy, it's not a philosophic difference on how to address the problem (e.g. hard emissions caps or market-based cap-and-trade) or even an ideological device or whether government should even address it ("let the free market sort it out"). It's one side flat-out refusing to address reality. I don't understand putting more onus on the head of the Executive, either. It's not like a Republican-controlled congress was passing a bunch of bills and he was vetoing them all (as will probably start to happen, at least a little bit, over the next two years). It was a Republican House and a Democratic Senate that couldn't pass bills together to send to the President.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 08:38 AM) it is about great food, and i happy to be a homer of some sorts, so i will say all great CHI food. Rick specializes in Mexican food, but he's got two world-class Mexican restaurants in Chicago (Frontera and Topolobampo) and he's had the long-running Mexico: One Plate at a Time that started on WTTW. I made this garlic sauce (prepared slightly differently but same ingredients) last night over grouper, it was delicious.

I don't know if this thread if just about pizza, but I have not found one Rick Bayless recipe yet that wasn't delicious.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 22, 2015 -> 05:03 PM) Because asking people to change their daily habits when you don't and you are in fact 100 times worse than an average individual isn't very consistent? Flying to global summits isn't a daily habit, but it's not the individual's day-to-day activities that drive it, it's industrial output. And hypocrisy is still not a valid refutation. Scientists gathering for a global summit isn't a counter-point that disproves AGW. A guy smoking 2 packs a day telling you "don't smoke, it'll kill ya" doesn't suddenly make cigarettes less cancerous.