StrangeSox

that's s***ty, sorry to hear that.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 10:48 AM) Just like to point out that we were bankrupt before GW Bush was ever president. Clinton balancing the budget is NOT the same as paying down debt (which he paid down zero of). And while the trillions number grew under Bush and Obama, we were into the trillions well before them, as by 1989 we were already approaching 3 trillion, and by 1999 it was approaching 6. thanks a lot, Reagan!

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 10:00 AM) I have a real hard time believing that the percentage of people receiving government help right now is greater than it was during the Great depression. It's probably the overall number, which is extremely misleading since we have 3x as many people now in this country. It might depend on how you define "government help." We didn't have Medicaid/Medicare, Social Security and other poverty relief programs back then. But we had worse poverty, which is why we implemented those programs in the first place. edit: another example might be the soup kitchen lines that are iconic of the Great Depression. Instead we give out food stamps these days, which definitely get counted as government support, but I'm not sure public soup kitchens would show up on Great Depression statistics. The soup kitchens weren't government support, but they were still essential support people needed to get by. Whether it's provided by local food banks or some level of government, the underlying needs are the same.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 09:53 AM) Statistically, more people receive government support then any point in time in the countries history. Now I'm not sure if that is adjusted as a % of population so it trends better historically or not but that was a stat I saw about 6-12 months ago in a journal article. Wages have been stagnant since the 1980's while cost of living has continued to climb and we've had a stagnant job market for a long time now.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 09:36 AM) I guess sorry for reading your post so literally? You should be sorry for reading my post in a thread asking people to make their own lists about "Worst President since WWII" to mean "Worst President EVA!" edit: a list of "worst President for domestic racial oppression/genocide" might be pretty interesting, but by default everyone pre-Lincoln is worse than everyone post-Lincoln with Andrew "Trail of Tears" Jackson getting special mention, and everyone post-Lincoln but pre-LBJ is by default worse than everyone post-LBJ/CRA.

*for some values of American

jesus christ

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 09:30 AM) I'm being serious. His campaign in '80 was "let's restore America." lol Reagan was good because he had a good campaign slogan?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 09:28 AM) I guess you didn't mean this huh? Context: an important thing.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 09:18 AM) See, I think rounding up an entire race of people simple because they had slanty eyes and putting them in camps is worse than "torture" of actual enemies who were caught trying to kill Americans. But FDR is a liberal wet dream so... forgotten? Check out the thread title!

QUOTE (farmteam @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 09:08 AM) Not sure if anything is as bad as Lawrence. His rant of a dissent in the Arizona SB1070 case that had more to do with talk radio talking points than anything the case was about is pretty noteworthy.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 08:55 AM) Ronald Reagan. Central America. "Not funding death squads in Central America" and "not starting a disastrous war and ok'ing torture" should immediately put everyone else below Reagan and W on any "worst presidents" list.

Reagan was god awful

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 08:28 AM) 288k jobs today, employment/pop ratio above 2009 levels. Q1 continues to intrigue me. Nobody seems to be moving forward like that was a trend but -2.9 is so huge. 2/3rds of the country was frozen and buried under a foot of snow that entire time.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 12:07 AM) Alpha has some pretty solid advice. If you have any specific questions I can probably answer them. I can as well, but for a $50k consulting fee. edit: I have some business plan spreadsheets and documents from a class I took a couple of years ago. I could send those to you if you wanted. Drop me a PM if you do.

FWIW, RFRA was created in response to the SCOTUS ruling in Smith v Employment Division. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 04:41 PM) But that's still not the "government" holding that position. The government isn't undertaking the same practice and mandating that everyone else follow it. Allowing special exemptions for one religion's beliefs is a pretty damn clear violation of the Establishment Clause.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 04:36 PM) Again, how is that bringing it INTO government? You think the government's position will be the same? It's allowing Christian religious beliefs to be used to circumvent laws the rest of us have to follow.

I don't think Muslims and Jews have an issue with paying for a meal plan that includes pork or shellfish as an option. Probably because they realize that it doesn't actually require them to personally consume those things, something that has alluded the Greens.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 04:17 PM) Otherwise I could validly not pay a portion of my taxes and claim "War is against my religion." At least in that scenario, your taxes directly pay for tanks and bombs. It's not another step or two removed like employee health insurance benefits.

I thought I made it pretty explicitly clear that they don't have to give up their business here. I don't think their tenuous connection to contraceptives (paying for a health care plan that belongs to the employees, which contains contraceptive coverage, which the employee may or may not use) is any sort of burden at all in the first place.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 04:02 PM) Not at all. The employer still has to pay the premium on the plan that includes contraception. They still have to provide it whether or not it ever gets used. But no money is spent on contraceptives unless an employee chooses to use that part of the plan. Your response just highlights how far removed from any "burden" the Greens actually were here.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 04:00 PM) Closing a business and losing a livelihood is less substantial than having to obtain contraception on your own? Really? You're going to stand behind that argument? 1) They could have either sold the business or shut it down, but they are already very wealthy and would live quite comfortably. 2) I can see now that I wasn't clear there. No, having to close or sell a business wouldn't be less substantial. What's way, way less substantial is the "burden" they actually faced in this case, which was paying an insurance company on behalf of their employees for insurance for those employees which might include some things that they personally object to.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 03:57 PM) The law doesn't force them to believe that abortions are NOT caused by contraception, but it does force them to support something financially that they don't agree with based on their religious beliefs. So what? It doesn't actually force them to change their religious beliefs. Quakers aren't exempt from taxation just because a substantial portion of our money goes to the DoD. Also, again, they already support those things financially by providing matching funds to their 401k plan that invests in the companies that make those things. The employees choose whether or not to invest in those plans just as they choose whether or not to utilize contraceptives, so they are functionally identical scenarios.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 03:55 PM) No, it wasn't. And ok? So what? She has an alternative, go utilize it. The Greens have an alternative of closing up shop if they don't like the law (or at least that's they way it should be). This ruling will deprive people of access to health care they would otherwise have received. That's a hell of a lot more of a substantial burden than anything the Greens faced.