StrangeSox

But there's no evidence that they won't agree to it other than in the past they preferred a different cut-off. Not every single democrat needs to agree on policy before starting to negotiate with republicans. The other side won't come to the table, and this is just a weak "both sides do it" deflection. In a series of posts decrying the influence of money on our politics, you've managed to blame prominent democrats, assert that they can't even after with each other let alone anyone else to get things done and haven't mentioned the group who is going to get close to a billion dollars from a handful of plutocrats this year. Comparing two different but similar policy preferences from Pelosi and Obama to an inability to pass compromise legislation with the other party is just silly.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 04:23 PM) All I can say about the current healthcare system is this: My parents both in their early 60's, have no health problems or any significant past health events, but are both slightly overweight. They make just over 100,000/year over 30% of our income goes to health insurance, and it doesn't even pay for preventative care like "wellness checks," gynecologist visits, colonoscopy, etc etc Are they on employer-provided plans or individual family plans?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 04:23 PM) So write a little line that exempts small business income. That's not a big hurdle to this. And you're still not getting my point. None of this should be on the table. They all pander to the rich and govern for the benefit of the rich (which happens to include themselves) and not their actual constituents. I'm not letting Repubs off the hook. I think it's patently obvious they're a part of this same problem. But the whole way you framed that post still doesn't make any sense. You brought that up as an example of how nobody can compromise and get things done. Obama's reasonable $250k position, as you called it, is further away from a compromise than Pelosi's $1M position. That whole section of the post doesn't make any sense if it's b****ing about pandering to the wealthy.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 04:11 PM) The whole small business thing is blown way out of proportion. Most small businesses don't retain that level of income anyway, they pay it out, plow it back in, costs, depreciation, etc. Honestly, if you are running a business successful enough to retain $1M per year in earnings, you should be re-organizing to a business mode that actually makes sense for you. Most do. The number of businesses effected by this, who retain earnings between $250k and $1M as an S-corp, is very, very small. Also, IMO, the best way to address this is as a structural problem in the tax code. An incorporated business should never be paying individual tax rates. I do not disagree. IIRC Bechtel (among others) is multi-billion dollar firm but gets lumped under the "small business" definition politically because it's an S-Corp.

The $1M threshold is a small business thing. Many sb's are s-corps, so they're taxed at individual rates. Just look at the CNN link where the Republicans were already bashing him for destroying our holy job creators. Republicans don't want a threshold period. They want tax cuts for all or for none. But you point to a disagreement between Obama's announced preferences and Pelosi's announced preferences as some sort of failure to negotiate and compromise, that "not even his own party will go along with that." There's an equivalency problem here, but there's also a very, very basic flaw: Pelosi's position is closer to a compromise than Obama's. If Obama's position is a good compromise with the Republican position (in political terms), then Pelosi's is even better yet but is still going to receive exactly zero support from Republicans. Your complaint here doesn't make sense and it's framed around disparaging Democrats while completely failing to note the Republican policy preferences and negotiating willingness.

That was not an excellent post. There's not some huge amount of tension between Obama and Pelosi on that, and Obama wouldn't veto an extension along the lines that Pelosi proposed.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 02:48 PM) Here's an example of why our system sucks: Obama wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for people making less than $250k. A good compromise in that it (1) keeps taxes low for the people that need them to be low, but (2) keeps taxes for those that can most afford it in a time when tax revenues are in demand. So, you'd think a wonderful democratic system would help him achieve that good compromise, but nope! Not even his own party will go along with that. They want to extend the cut threshold to A MILLION DOLLARS. Because people that make ONE MILLION DOLLARS ...INDIVIDUALLY.... PER YEAR are really in need of not having to pay some additional taxes. They are starving in the bread lines with the rest of us. And you think, well this is silly. Surely if these congressmen REPRESENT their constituents they would think the other way, because the vast majority of individuals within their districts would not fall anywhere near the ONE MILLION DOLLAR....INDIVIDUALLY....PER YEAR threshold. Ah, but who pays to get those people into office? THE PEOPLE IN THE MILLION DOLLAR f***ING THRESHOLD, so of course they - Republican or Democrat - will completely and utterly f*** this up so that at the end of the day the middle class will get f***ed again. Sigh. That's not what that link says. It says the Pelosi and Schumer have a plan that would push it up to $1M, not that they have rejected going along with the $250k level. There's no links to anything, no cites or explanation, so it's hard to figure out WTF that person is talking about.

I'm much more in favor of something that lessens the power of incumbency than something that removes choice from the electorate.

SCOTUSblog has a thorough recap of the process of the media reporting the court's decision: http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/07/were-get...ng-assessments/

A counterpoint to that, at least in the case of Wisconsin, is that Wisconsin was the only state in the country from March 2011 to March 2012 to have statistically significant total job loss: http://www.jsonline.com/business/state-pos...-148694855.html So unemployment figures alone, especially at the state level, don't paint the whole picture. You'd also have to look at state legislative body make-up and what policies were actually enacted. And, of course, in states like Michigan and Ohio, the auto bailouts are central to any employment argument there. Can you credit a Republican governor's policies for that?

They've found that they're much, much more effective hitters when they tailor their swing to go primarily to one field. Even if that allows the defense to use huge shifts, they're still better off sticking with their normal swing. If they try to "tap" it to the 3rd base side, they're most likely to miss or hit the ball weakly enough that it's still an out.

After enacting a school voucher program to funnel state education funds to religious schools that teach evolution isn't true because the Loch Ness Monster exists, one Republican Horrified to Discover Christianity Isn't the Only Religion

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 7, 2012 -> 06:45 PM) I sure hope so. This downturn is lasting so long that my fear is companies are learning to make-do with fewer staff and will never re-hire people to the former levels or close to them. That companies will continue to have pay freezes and treat the employees like s*** with the mantra, "At least you have a job," the overriding rallying cry of management to employees. At one of our meetings where pay was frozen for a year, some peon moron had the nerve to say, "At least we all have jobs," out loud, to audible groans. I hope you are correct, but the downturn has lasted so long, it seems like our country's businesses are making do with less and will never re-hire a significant amount of people they laid off. I figure this is a great time to mention how much Starbucks corporate fought against my friend who was working to unionize one of their stores in Chicago.

That sounds like an incredibly stupid plan.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 7, 2012 -> 01:54 PM) Yes but he's challenging people to get with it. I see none of you answer my questions about whether you are confident about your futures or your kids' futures with America on a downward slide economically and no end of our misery apparently in sight. Get with what? His preferred policies and programs. This and all of the other 'Centrist' pleas for political congeniality are really just pleas to follow that person's policy preferences.

Motorola isn't going to upgrade two phones that are only about a year old, the Droid 3 and the Droid X2. f*** you, Motorola.

Get one of those camelbak backpacks. They work awesome for hiking or biking.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 6, 2012 -> 10:39 PM) Q-Did you even read what he wrote? Or just state your opinion? I don't know you but my guess is you don't care what he has to say and didn't even read it. This land of ours is a mess right now. Are you confident your kids will be able to even live in a house with a picket fence and get to vacation in Wisconsin a few weeks a summer? That they'll be able to go to White Sox games? That you'll be able to afford their tuition to Benet Academy? I'm sick of partisanship. I want SOLUTIONS no matter who comes up with them: Democrats, Repubs, Business People, Donald Trump, Flavor Flav! Give me solutions. I've read some of his crap before. It's crap and nothing new.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 6, 2012 -> 09:42 PM) I'm not smart enough to understand what you just wrote. I would like to take a poll asking people a.) are you happy with our economy? b.) are you happy with the employment situation in our country? c.) Are you happy with health care system in our country? d.) do you think our country's MIDDLE CLASS will ever have prosperity again? If so when? (to get to the point again where a mom or dad doesn't even have to think twice about buying 4 tickets for 15-20 Sox games a year and wolfing down as much food and drink at the game as possible). e.) do you think our President has a chance to ever get meaningful policy passed? f.) do you think partisan politics is a problem right now or the same as it's always been? g.) are you 100 percent confident your kids will be on solid footing employment wise and have enough money to buy a large house and vacation house and enjoy wonderful lives? No, but I'm quite certain Mr. Schultz does not have the answer. His solution, as is often the case with "wisdom" coming from wealthy corporate executives on our political solutions, means better times for him and his at the expense of the rest of us.

I really don't care what the President of Starbucks has to say about our political system. Nothing is worse to me than the "somewhere in the middle" pundit class politics worked into an artform by Friedman and epitomized by the failure of "third way" corporatist campaigns like Americans Elect.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 6, 2012 -> 03:32 PM) It was a stupid comment with the expected reaction. It was a factual comment and it was funny. Outrage and barely-masked to naked racism is, sadly, an expected reaction.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 6, 2012 -> 03:17 PM) where I quit reading I'll give you that the article's a bit over-the-top, but you still made it through almost the whole thing. At least you've saved yourself from the comments section which has chipped away a little bit of my faith in humanity.

The ongoing meltdown over Chris Rock's 4th of July tweet is pretty funny.

Oh hey that terrible line again?

Another mediocre jobs report