Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 01:11 PM) Uh, what? I'd love to see the chat logs to see what the hell he's trying to claim as support for that. Some portions of the chat:

ugh, if anyone is partaking in the Bill Simmons chat on espn.com, he's claiming (and defending) that the Bears/Packers aren't a "rivalry" I'm beginning to hate that ass hate more and more. It's too bad, he's really good at what he does, he's just an east coast masshole.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 12:54 PM) In good times, do companies perform "Across the board" investments? That would make no more sense than across the board cuts. It might not make sense to cut every single department by 20%--maybe some can really only afford a 15% without it significantly impacting functionality, but another could absorb 25%. "Dumb" cuts still just pass the responsibility of detailed analysis and may hurt the company more than analytical cuts. I think most of the government programs in that list were programs where all the government has to decide is "do we hand out X or Y?" It's not a "how much money will we lose" analysis.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 12:22 PM) How do you know if that 20% makes any sense at all, or if it will leave the department of X in shambles and functionally inoperable? I think you'd need to actually describe (at a high level, not detail) a hypothetical system, how checks would be performed, how it'd be enforced and what the penalties would be. The stigma against remotely-potentially-illegal workers depends on exactly what employers have to check and what penalties they face even if they make good-faith efforts (but the government believes and prosecutes otherwise). If hiring someone from Mexico who you believe to be legal exposes you to significant liability, the Mexican is at a severe disadvantage to someone born a US citizen. I think you sort of have that backwards, though. Barring the most recent and current economic situation, there's a supply-demand issue due to immigration laws. The only way to shore up the job situation is to staff those jobs with legal immigrants, migrants or citizens, but that doesn't seem possible given current immigration laws. 20% was a made up figure. They can speak with department heads and figure out a percent to cut based on whatever criteria they come up. I'm not sure what the system is. I'm just throwing out an alternative to Balta's BS "cutting government spending never works because you're a conservative and conservatives don't like the idea of cutting border control" argument. Illegals are taking a lot of jobs no? They're keeping wages low. Get rid of them, employers are forced to pay reasonable wages and people will fill them.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 11:29 AM) the real kicker is they are not cutting spending, they decided they will actually increase spending 2% a year. and they're ignoring that the pensions due is growing every year. So in review - they've killed any incentive for business to come here (and stay here), they've taken more money from the people (whose spending said money would help businesses grow and hire new workers), and they haven't cut anything yet which would actually lower the deficit over the coming years. Illinois government everybody!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 11:24 AM) If you just give an "x dollars" or "x%" cut figure, you don't know what you're cutting. You're not really examining efficiency and necessity of programs. But this brings us back to the whole problem of causing stigma against hiring anyone who is an immigrant or might be an immigrant. How far does a company have to go to do due diligence to verify someone's visa or SSN is legitimate? How much more is that going to cost them than hiring someone with no potential immigrant ambiguity? You're also putting an expensive burden on any small businesses who may want to hire for low-wage jobs (typically what illegal immigrants are getting). Will a general contractor go through the time and effort to verify a bunch of laborers' backgrounds extensively at the risk of expensive litigation/fines, or will they just pass them over and hire the white guy who was born and raised here? This just creates a massive government program with no funding and shifts the burden to business at the risk of severe penalties. I fail to see why it's not sufficient for Congress to submit it's budget with a 20% across the board reduction or whatever to X department. You give the head of that department a heads up that he's going to get X amount total for the year, he/she will make the necessary changes. Congress doesn't need to appropriate a specific amount of staples the Department of Health and Human Services can purchase in order to effectuate a cut in government spending. How is that causing a stigma? You put the onus on the employer to do whatever they can to ensure they're hiring a legally documented worker. If they get stuck with fakes, then so be it, that's not actionable. I don't think it would be anymore expensive than it is right now for employers who already do a lot of that work. Who doesn't take copies of that information from potential employers? Can we not create (if it isn't already) a database to SS#'s and names just to double check? There's going to be people that get by, sure. Again though, the important part is the penalty. It's what happens if you get caught. I don't think we should force businesses to be scared so much that they won't hire anyone who looks like they're illegal, but I think you could create a plan which is fair to everyone involved. There are people out there knowingly hiring illegals. Those are the people i'm concerned about. And i've always said, shore up the job situation and you don't need a fence. If people can't make money here, they won't come here. They'll invade Canada.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 09:34 AM) This has never worked and will never work. It's pretending. You can't cut something if you're not willing to say what you're cutting. It's like when Bush cut taxes dramatically and how that effectively starved the beast and forced all sorts of cuts (that never actually happened). Of course...somehow, you have to enforce these rules. Which is where a lot of the new spending went...employment enforcement efforts. So, you want to cut back on the enforcement efforts and expand the enforcement efforts. What more do you need than reducing the budget for X department? They don't have to say what they're cutting (and/or not spending in the future), let the department head figure out the details. And you really don't. You could double or triple the size of your employment audit force. 35k a year to a college graduate. Employ 100 of them, whatever, it's cheap. You don't need to spend a gazillion dollars to do this. And it's like any law you try to enforce, you're never going to get everyone, but if you get enough you change people's attitudes. You make them choose whether saving x amount every year is worth losing their entire business. The key is making the penalty so severe that people aren't going to take the risk of getting caught. And if employers aren't hiring here, there's no illegal immigration anymore, cuz there's no point.

Balta, what you fail to grasp in these arguments is that these decisions don't happen in a vaccum. It's not just cutting or freezing spending and then stepping away. That's one step out of many. Unlike the morons in Illinois, you pass legislation to deal with the spending and THEN you figure out a way to work going forward. I'd be fine with cuts in Homeland security. s***, I'd be fine with scrapping the entire worthless department. We have national intelligence agencies. Cut Homeland Security and divert a portion of the budget to those agencies that already exist. Problem solved. No need to waste billions and billions on this bulls*** security theater. And yeah, I'd be fine cutting the border protection spending, if at the same time we enact laws like the one they tried to pass in Arizona. Make it absolutely crippling to do business with illegal immigrants. There's a million things I'd do IN ADDITION to spending freezes and cuts.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 08:32 AM) I found this an interesting bit of research from Forbes. Lol at this part: So, choosing no employment is the same as choosing not to be employed in one particular job. Riighhhtttt.... Terrible article.

Doubt it gets done, but yay! I'd also be in favor of more defense cuts, but this is a start. http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whis...n-spending-cuts

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2011/...-with-espn.html Strikes me as a gigantic conflict. ESPN being their loudest cheerleader basically guarantees that Texas will remain relevant on a national scale.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 19, 2011 -> 10:43 AM) This is one of the things that the GOP is going to struggle with, with the emergence of the Tea Party. Tea Partiers do include actual libertarians, and at a local level, the movement may have in part been generated by libertarian-like ideas. But its become clear that what the current people who call themselves Tea Party members are, in great part, is angry Republicans, pure and simple. Which actually sucks for the true libertarians in the crowd. Yep.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 19, 2011 -> 10:13 AM) Sullivan's take on the Tea Party: I enjoy they fact that he lumped in women's rights and minority rights there, when all he did was provide evidence of 50% of them not being in favor of gay marriage/union. "Half of them hate gays so the party as a whole hates everyone who isn't a white male." Also, there's something to be said about being anti-debt and also being realistic about the s***ty economy we're in. The tax cuts are an attempt to help the economy grow. You know, kinda like how Obama is going to look into changing existing law that hampers business growth. Basically the same idea. I don't think those views are necessarily inconsistent.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jan 19, 2011 -> 10:01 AM) Nice win last night. Good to see Davis going up to get some rebounds. I know MSU's thing is rebounding, but giving up 17 offensive boards? Not good. I'm also not sure how you win by making one field goal in the last 10 minutes of a close game. Weird. Anyway, we'll take it. I thought we'd find a way to jag it. Protect home court and try to win some games on the road...thus is life in the Big Ten. Big game Saturday. Never know what could happen if we come out and shoot well at home, which we have been doing. How many minutes will Tisdale play before Sullinger/Lauderdale foul him out? I have 11. I've been a huge Tisdale supporter the last couple of years. I think he brings a really unique skill set that the Big Ten just doesn't have (a big that can extend the floor and be deadly from 15+ feet). I don't think he's been utilized near enough this year (where's the dribble drive, dump off for the 15 foot baseline shot he used to take 4-5 times a game?), but that game last night just made it abundantly clear that we're a better, more physical and athletic team without him in there. We dominated MSU when the lineup was McCamey, Richardson, Paul, Richmond and Davis. Weber needs to go to that style of play if this team is going to reach its potential. I'm interested to see how the game Saturday goes. I don't think Ohio State is playing it's best basketball right now. They've won, obviously, but close games against Iowa and Penn St. Hopefully Illinois can take advantage.

Wow, Georgia got robbed last night with some missed calls at the end of the Tennessee game.

ugh, if they mess up this shot clock violation call. that wasn't even close. these guys are f***ing terrible.

i really hate how the entire A section is a bunch of old farts who sit down the entire game. they really gotta renovate the hall

get tisdale out of the f***ing game. it slowed down as soon as he got in there

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 05:21 PM) I'd say we're not. In general, in terms of hours work, we work our ass off. best stretch of the game by far is when tisdale is not in the game mccamey richardson paul richmond davis

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 05:11 PM) Jenks, The real problem with preexisting conditions and allowing insurance companies to set the price is that they make the policy unacceptable. I had this issue with one of my clients, the insurance company was "ending" its specific policy and therefore no longer wanted to cover the client. Keep in mind the insurance policy was in effect, paid for and the insurance company is going to keep existing in Illinois. Due to that the insurance company was required to offer another policy. The company offered my client a policy, with something like a $20k deductible saying it was due to a preexisting condition. He had been previously insured by them and he had always paid them. These are the situations that we need to prevent. I completely understand where you are coming from, if I am a low risk insured, why should I pay more than a high risk insured? But insurance companies try and make it impossible for some people to get insurance, even if that person was always insured. I think that there should be some protection for people who have been insured their entire life and then an insurance company tries to drop them or force them to drop. Every case is its own situation, which is why its hard to create all encompassing laws. I hope that there is a middle point some where, I dont think most people have a problem with higher risk people paying more, its just I have a problem with insurance companies creating ways to stop insuring people. I hate dealing with insurance companies, they always want their money, but when it comes time to pay out, they will do everything in their power to cancel the policy. Its ridiculous how many Declaratory Actions insurance companies file. I agree, and I don't really want to take the position of defending the greedy ass insurance companies (which is why i was for actual healthcare reform, not just "government will pick up the check" reform). But on the other hand this whole healthcare debate just defined for me what America has become - we demand the moon and want nothing to do with the work it takes to get it. We're (generally) a bunch of lazy asses who eat fast food and then b**** and moan that we're fat and have health problems and don't have the money to pay to see a doctor. All that does is feed the line of thinking that is "we need government to step in and provide for us!" which i'm sure you know I despise. No one should be screwed out of insurance. No one should be left to die because of a terrible, unavoidable disease or condition. But if you're a 300 lb smoker and you develop lung cancer and diabetes and all sorts of orthopedic problems, well, I don't have a problem with an insurance company saying "hey wait a minute, a normal policy isn't going to cover the hundreds of thousands of dollars you're going to cost me."

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:55 PM) The difference between "most" and "some" is huge... and whoever said all cases of diabetes are self-inflicted? I'd say a vast majority of "pre-existing conditions" are not self-inflicted. That statement is so ridiculously incorrect it's unfathomable. Seriously though, I dunno how you can dispute my statement so seriously given how incredibly unhealthy our country is. I might be wrong, and I might be overstating it a bit. But it's certainly not "so ridiculously incorrect."

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:51 PM) Pre-existing conditions are basically ANY health problem a human has prior to applying for health insurance. If you ever lose your job and go off health insurance for a given period (without paying out the ass for COBRA) then your given problems (be they from obesity, to diabetes, to ulcerative colitis, to f***ing cancer) can all be considered pre-existing conditions when applying to a future health insurance provider. google is your friend How is what I said "so ridiculously incorrect it's unfathomable?" Obesity, diabetes, heart conditions.....self inflicted and/or a result of self-inflicted conditions. I didn't say any potential condition is self inflicted. Nor did I say that pre-existing conditions should be a basis to deny someone coverage. I said I don't see a problem with making people pay more if they've got one.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:44 PM) This post is so ridiculously incorrect it's unfathomable. Prove it. I might very well be wrong, but I'd like to see some evidence.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 11:14 AM) Link "I live in a flood plain and have to buy flood insurance for my house?! Blasphemy! I shouldn't have to pay more than someone else!!" As much as there are really tough situations out there with pre-existing conditions, there's a good reason those patients have to pay more - they're medical care costs more. And I'm willing to bet more often than not those problems are self inflicted (smoking, obesity, etc). I don't think people should be left on the street, but I don't have a problem with insurance companies asking for more money from them.

they're public employees. pretty sure by law that information is published. edit: actually it looks like they're just deemed public record, so a simple FOIA request would get the info. I think newspapers/websites just post it for the convenience of the public. Why would people be against this? I want to know whatever every public employee makes. Keeps the government accountable for not paying people ridiculous salaries.