Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 03:14 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 03:11 PM) So...do you think that the people who insist "getting more money in the hands of the job creators is the way out of this recession" are lying to cover for their donors or does the party that sounds like actually believe that is true? Both. I think they're playing to the rich that got them there, and they believe as a general philosophy that the rich invest and get the economy rolling. I don't necessarily disagree with that position, but the timing isn't right for it. If taxes are going to be raised (be it raised by new legislation or raised via a refusal to extend a cut) it's stupid to do that now when the middle class, the driving force for the economy, is in the worst shapes it's been in decades.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 10:30 AM) I'm betting she'd absolutely hate it. I bet she screams spells like Expecto Patronum in the middle of it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 03:00 PM) 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. You missed my point. I'm not saying that inter-party squabbles are a problem. I'm talking about the fact that it doesn't matter what party you are, you're the same because you work for people with money (I didn't think it was necessary to post a link establishing that Republicans also want the threshold to be much, much higher). A million dollar threshold is asinine. If people in government were truly representing their districts, that would not be a consideration. But as it is the middle class will get f***ed because congress works for what put them in office - $$. And the longer they're there, the more they get for those donors.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 01:36 PM) They could cut about 4 stories and be okay. A story I would be fine with is a Jessica/Tara lesbian arc. IN. Let's make it happen.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 01:44 PM) Agreed whole heartedly. I thought last night was the first good episode of the season. I'm confused with this post. Last night was the worst precisely because of the thinned out storylines it covered but did nothing with (Lafayette, Sam/Luna, and the fire monster).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 01:52 PM) The other thing that happens though...they become better deal-makers. They actually improve at writing laws and getting them passed. You put a bunch of first or second term congresspeople in there, you get what the Republicans are dealing with right now...people who won't sign off on anything, to the detriment of not only the country, but even their own leadership/party. Yeah because Democrats that have been there long-term, the Dick Durbin's of the world, are really all about getting laws passed even if it means compromising.

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.

So, True Blood is back to being pretty awful. The first and second episodes are always decent, and then they find a way to extend and thin out story lines to the point where I stop caring and get bored. Also thanks HBO for spoiling what's about to happen in the Russel/Sooki/Eric/Bill storyline. Anyone else notice that in the little recaps they do between shows? On a different note, the wifey and I started watching Episodes on Showtime. Anyone else watch this? We've got 1-2 left in the first season. A little different, not great, but pretty solid. Matt Leblanc is really good in it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 09:10 AM) 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? Excuses, excuses. My side is doing better. Neener, neener, neener.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 09:59 AM) I say this every time it comes up...after watching the California Legislature...I'm strongly opposed to term limits at the legislative level. Because the benefit of having a guy like Strom Thurmond or Robert Byrd in the senate for FIFTY years is what? There's absolutely no positive from guys being in Congress that long. The longer they're in, the more corrupt/shady/unrepresentative they become.

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-republ...nt-their-states

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 8, 2012 -> 10:14 PM) Greg- Here is the thing. Kap says it is about "what's in it for me", Balta says it actually works because we disagree and the system allows for that, and you say it doesn't work at all. You are all correct. Here, to me, is the biggest (but not only) variable in this equation that throws the whole thing out of whacK; The wolf in the hen house. The system we have is the best there is, in my view, in the world, probably ever. The checks and balances in place are just artistically brilliant. They are not, however, perfect. The biggest chink in that armor, where poison can leak in, is when any branch of government is responsible for holding itself accountable in a way that is self-detrimental by nature. Campaign Finance. The way people are elected to Congress and the Presidency (and how SCOTUS is filled by method), as it stands, creates a situation where corruption and self-interest have enough power over the officials that it often overwhelms the greater good. And the only body that can change these rules is Congress itself. This is the nuts running the asylum. Now, the thing that SHOULD be the main check against that, is YOU. The voter. The less involved and less informed the voting public is, and the few people who bother to get involved or even just vote... the further entrenched their self-interest can become. Basically, its your fault. Peace. -NSS72 Our system is f***ed for the reason you point out - the same groups of people are putting the same types of people into positions of power who only work for their own self-interest. We should have term limits, we should have better campaign finance rules, and we should do everything we can to have more than two major political powers. Yes, I agree in the end the voter holds all the power. But i'm convinced that 80% of this country is full of morons. The "OMG Obama is gonna pay for my gas! or OMG the gays have brought upon this drought!" crowd care more about who wins American Idol than they do who is President. The two major parties know it, they've fabricated this bulls*** "us against them" mentality because they know that even if they lose THIS election, the next one is right around the corner and it's always a 50/50 game.

Caught up on a few rentals this weekend: Jeff, Who Lives at Home - Meh. Tried to be deep and interesting, ultimately fell flat. Characters were not interesting enough and the story was weak, especially Susan Sarandan's storyline. C- War Horse - Solid but not spectacular. I was weirded out too much with that kids' love of that horse. Still, well done all around and it kept me engaged to the end. B The Grey - Liam Neeson is the s***. Liked this one a lot. Not too keen on the ending, seemed a little abrupt, but overall the movie was great. I'd give it an A-

It was a stupid comment with the expected reaction.

QUOTE (RZZZA @ Jul 6, 2012 -> 03:17 PM) Never thought I would be so excited about getting Kirk f***ing Hinrich but with all these other options we have, Kirk might be the best NBA-ready PG we could realistically get for the money we're offering He has too much interest from other teams. He'll get more than the MLE. Unless he wants to take a Chicago discount, but i'm not sure why he would.

QUOTE (Carter224 @ Jul 6, 2012 -> 09:51 AM) Anyone else have to work on the 4th of July? They took a vote at my work, Wednesday off or Friday off, and since I work with a bunch of mexicans they all voted for the 3 day weekend instead of the 4th. Me and the guy who works with me were the only two who voted Wednesday. Depends on what you do, but I would have taken Friday. No one is working/doing anything on the 4th, so it's a day of surfing the web (though I do that far too often on a normal business day).

with the stimulus I thought we were supposed to be under 6% by now?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jul 5, 2012 -> 03:32 PM) Can't they open a private practice? In most circumstances the free market principles of supply and demand effects labor costs. You can but it's extremely difficult. (1) you don't know what you're doing, (2) even if you think you can figure it out (or if you're ballsy enough to try) findings clients is difficult unless you're well connected and/or get lucky, and (3) if you get into civil litigation it's cost prohibitive because you have to front tens of thousands of dollars. Law and medicine are two areas where market forces just don't really compute. You don't want to risk your life or a big case by handing it off to just anyone.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 5, 2012 -> 03:31 PM) But isnt that really the consumers fault? You can go get one of those new attorneys for a fraction of the price. You dont need to work at a firm, it just makes the client feel safe and warm. Some of the highest paid attorneys I have worked with have been by far the worst. I think the consumer is doing the right thing wanting someone with experience. I know I sure as hell wouldn't have hired me when I was right out of school. Shoot, my sister is trying to get me to represent her in a real estate closing. I'm scared to death of screwing it up since i've never done it before.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 5, 2012 -> 02:48 PM) Its just like lawyers, if they feel there are to many or the marketplace is getting saturated they increase the bar fail rate. What that doesnt solve is all of the terrible lawyers who already have licenses and get to charge jacked up prices. Really though, the legal profession is a good example of why an endless number of doctors wouldn't necessarily lower prices. You can have a million doctors with a degree, but there's still a finite number of jobs available for them. There are something like 5000 new attorneys in illinois a year and only a few hundred openings.

Rout, extra innings and a tight game. One of the more impressive sweeps I can remember.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 5, 2012 -> 11:34 AM) Isnt your argument presupposing that these are not valid cases? Why cant it just be that there are more incidents of Dr's f***ing up worse in the US and thus resulting in more lawsuits and damages? Once again, the key question is how many of those lawsuits are without merit. The answer is, at least in Illinois, not many as you have to have an independent expert state there is a meritorious claim, which is basically the highest standard of any civil lawsuit I can think of. What's funny is that anymore these "experts" are being ignored by juries. I was just talking to a guy the other day that lost a jury trial and while interviewing the jury they all said they knew the experts were hired guns saying the opposite things, so they didn't really take their testimony into consideration like they would a normal fact witness.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 5, 2012 -> 10:38 AM) The part in bold is pretty much the opposite of what they're saying. The French have behaviors that make themselves less healthy...higher smoking rates, but they deal with those problems in a more cost effective way, by making effective treatment outcomes more of a priority at the government level. But how does the US fail there? Kids aren't being tested for diabetes at routine check-ups? Adults aren't asked about their smoking habits and whether they have trouble with their lungs? These things happen all the time.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 5, 2012 -> 10:09 AM) Fareed Zakaria had an article yesterday that hit on our recent conversation: If i'm reading him right, he's basically arguing that it's the way Americans utilize the health industry, not the health industry itself, that is the problem. Which goes back to my point that we spend so much because from the start we're more unhealthy and need more care. I 100% agree that we don't use our healthcare as efficiently as we should (i'm a good example of this, as I pay for health insurance but haven't been to a doctor in about a decade) and when we do it's for problems that we shouldn't have in the first place.