Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 13, 2010 -> 01:30 PM) I.e., compromising I think there's a difference.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2010 -> 12:51 PM) And which ones do we remember? The ones that reach the big Court. Do you remember how any of the lower-court decisions that preceded Roe v. Wade were decided? Btw, it's probably worth pointing out who the biggest loser would be if this ruling stood...the health insurance industry. They'd be back in the insurance death spiral arena, where they might as well all just go out of business, because this ruling doesn't hit the parts of the law that ban recissions, ban rejections for pre-existing conditions, etc, just the part that protects/saves the insurance industry. In fact, the plaintiffs in this case had asked for the entire bill to be struck down, and the only thing the judge hit was the individual mandate. I'm just saying, you appear to be implying that because other Courts have ruled one way, and this Court ruled the other, that it's wrong. And they asked for the whole thing to be struck down because of a lack of a severability clause. Inartful drafting. The Judge wisely didn't make a big deal of it. But it's yet another reason why drafting a 2400 page bill in a day is f***ing retarded and why Congress sucks.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2010 -> 12:34 PM) This particular one, yes, and because he was bringing the case, he got to choose which federal judge in his state he wanted to have hear it. It's still a setback, but it's worth noting that out of 20-some cases previously brought against the individual mandate at this level, 14 have already been dismissed, 2 have been heard and ruled against with reasoning that directly contradicts the reasoning of this judge. From what I'm reading, the largest, multi-state challenge is still the one in Florida. This one will of course be appealed upwards to the 4th court of Appeals, and since the individual mandate doesn't take affect until 2014 there was no reason to issue a stay at this point. Unless I'm mistaken, you don't get to pick which Judge you want. You get to pick one Judge you don't want. And I'm guessing there were a whole lotta cases that ruled that blacks weren't citizens, abortions weren't legal, gays don't have special rights, etc. Numbers don't mean anything in the law. You should know that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2010 -> 12:28 PM) Note...I said appointed. In this case, that's just how political the appointment process is. The anti-ACA forces had about 20 different states in which they could choose to file the case, and they filed it in the place with the most sympathetic judge they could find, where the state constitution gave them the best chance at success, which is why this challenge was found successful at this level while the challenges in other states were not. Wasn't the case brought by the AG of Virginia?

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Dec 13, 2010 -> 09:38 AM) John Boehner - I will not compromise Taking it out of context. Watch the tape. He's basically saying I'm not going to sell out on the people who elected me just to get something passed. He then reiterated that the key is finding a common ground on issues.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Dec 13, 2010 -> 09:41 AM) Except the part where he flat out said he will refuse to compromise. Semantics. He doesn't want to compromise his principles, but he wants to seek out middle ground. To me that's the same thing, but I get the slight distinction.

I was really impressed with this Boehner piece 60 minutes did yesterday. Seems like he could be a really good house speaker. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7143552n

QUOTE (dasox24 @ Dec 11, 2010 -> 05:30 PM) When did I say he's getting it worse than he deserves? No really, tell me when I said that. I said he shouldn't be fired like some people have suggested. I agree that he has to serve his penalty. He broke the rules. I've never denied that. But I will never say it was something he should be fired for. Edit: I'm assuming here that even though you quoted nightni, you must have known his post was sarcastic, and therefore, are directing that 2nd comment at me. Your comment about Jay Bilas just screams that Pearl is a victim of the media. He's really not. He should have been fired, and I dunno any reasonable person who disagrees. Programs have been given the death penalty for lying to the NCAA. So far he's gotten what, 7 games from the SEC? If the NCAA comes down hard on him, and Tennessee basically did nothing but reduce his salary by like 10% and take away some phone calls, that just means they've enabled him. They should have taken a stand and said "we don't deal with liars and cheats." But of course they didn't, and that speaks of the administration down there (See also the football program).

QUOTE (knightni @ Dec 11, 2010 -> 05:27 PM) I know I'm off my rocker, but the caps were a version of green text (sarcasm). I was poking fun at dasox a little. Sorry, that part was for dasox24

QUOTE (knightni @ Dec 11, 2010 -> 05:20 PM) THIS IS TENNESSEE! NORMAL WORKPLACE RULES DON'T APPLY! Cheating and breaking the rules is the norm at Tennessee right? You're off your rocker if you think Pearl somehow is getting it worse than he deserves. He WILLFULLY broke rules. He LIED to the governing body of his chosen career path.

Derrick Rose apparently not an elite point guard: http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/col...=PERDiem-101210 Translation: Rose doesn't fit my statistical model, therefore he's not one of the top guards in the league.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 10, 2010 -> 09:04 AM) Many of the people who are affected by this don't live in New York and don't work in New York but came from several states around the region, including New Jersey, Connecticut, etc. Many of them also acted after the EPA declared the air to be safe in the Ground Zero area. Turns out the EPA was wrong or lying. So there is a pretty easy case to be made for federal wrongdoing here. First responders came all the way from Jersey and Connecticut? If the bill was out of state people only I could buy it a little more. But we all know it's 99.9% New Yorkers.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 10, 2010 -> 08:48 AM) Really, you don't feel like the rescuers and responders after 9/11 who were exposed to that stuff were acting on behalf of the whole country, not just the state of NY? I certainly feel like they basically became volunteer members of the National Guard, to some extent, responding to a national tragedy that happened to be in a particular state. Anyway, even beyond that I can give a good answer; because the EPA lied to the responders repeatedly and said that the conditions near the collapse site were safe. Acting on behalf of the whole country? New York citizens responding to a building collapse in New York? No, sorry, I really don't. I think the people that came afterward from all over the country were the people that were acting "on behalf of the whole country." But this is a "first responder" bill right? So that doesn't include those people. I'm not really swayed by the EPA argument either. I'm confident that NY health officials were also saying the same thing (and if not, seeing as they're local, they should have been saying something). Either way, I don't think that automatically creates a responsibility on behalf of the federal government to pay for it. This is a political issue. New York doesn't want to (i.e., can't) pay for it, so they're trying to get the federal government to, painting it as some attack against American heroes. I'm not buying it.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Dec 9, 2010 -> 08:34 PM) Oh my god oh my god oh my god oh my god oh my god oh my god oh my god oh my god oh my god oh my god oh my god oh my god. New Uncharted! My favorite game studio is back. That looks pretty sweet. I'm pumped as well.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 10, 2010 -> 08:07 AM) While we're at it... The $7.4 billion price tag is less than 1% the price of the tax cut agreement. By the way, Illinois, when Mark Kirk was running for office, he pledged to vote for this bill. He also voted for it while he was in the House. He is now in the Senate, and he voted to uphold the filibuster to kill the bill, on the grounds that the Senate should do nothing until the tax cut package is extended. seeing as that affects 300-325 million people, versus what, a thousand? I agree. And I still don't get that first responder bill and why the federal government needs to be involved. I'm assuming it's mostly NY fireman/police officers/medical responders. If that's the case it's NEW YORK'S problem, since they are NEW YORK employees who are paid by the state of NEW YORK. Edit: I guess the report says survivors too. But I still don't know why the federal government should be involved with this.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 9, 2010 -> 07:35 AM) Actually, it kinda would have. Can't do it forever, but you're guaranteed that money will be spent. Of course it would have! Like I said, lets spend 10 trillion and just pay everyone a salary. Unemployment solved! We didn't FIX any of the economic problems we have, but we sure created jobs didn't we?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 8, 2010 -> 07:25 PM) Tax cuts don't work, spending doesn't work. So, what, we just sit and wait until the free market gets around to creating enough jobs so people don't starve and lose their houses? A bit much no? Tax cuts, when used properly (i.e., not for minimal income tax increases), DO work. Spending, on the right things (i.e., not wasting 50 billion on stupid infrastructure projects that DO NOTHING TO CREATE JOBS), DOES work. The problem is this idiot in charge and the idiots in Congress don't care if it works. They care about the headline that they can get.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 8, 2010 -> 07:15 PM) Giving money to the wealthy via tax cuts so they can be ever so generous by creating jobs to fill non-existent demand isn't a solution, but that's been GOP policy for decades now. Yap. And I've said that's a pretty stupid position too.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 8, 2010 -> 04:16 PM) I can agree with you that the economy could have used other measures...but how many of them would have gotten past the Senate? If you want to argue where the mistake was, it was in ignoring the advice of some people to shoot for the moon in the Stimulus package and start off by asking for $1.3 trillion, so that it was $1.1 trillion or $1 trillion when Snowe and Collins pared it back. Once they spent their chance, that was it, and you know that. We've gotten "stimulus" type items through the Senate since then...a couple short unemployment extensions and the small business bill, and those had to be paid for by cutting food stamps. Shocker that a liberal thinks the answer is throwing more money at the problem. We should have just given the 15 million unemployed in this country a 40k a year salary. That would have solved the unemployment problem.

Ridiculous. Too many minorities failing a standardized test = das raycist! http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/12...ing-policy.html Why test these children when testing will just lead to poor grading and students dropping out! Seriously, instead of pointing the finger at, ohhh, I dunno, PARENTS, it's gotta be the fact that they're being tested!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 8, 2010 -> 02:01 PM) The other way to look at this deal is...it's about $450 billion in stimulus dollars that weren't there last year. This is, by conservative estimates, on the order of 1.8-2 million jobs worth of spending, and it's going to push hard away from the deflation risk that was becoming more and more creepingly obvious. That's why, if I were in Congress, I'd be inclined to vote for this package. I'd definitely try to extract my pound of flesh, focusing on the estate tax most likely, but the difference between passing this package and not passing this package could easily be his re-election, through the stimulus properties. Getting that stimulus right now is probably worth tolerating wasting a couple hundred billion on Republican tax cuts. Wait, what? 1.8-2 million jobs? How do you figure? Or is this one of those "if we spend 15 trillion we can save a million jobs, which if you think about it, IS creating jobs" arguments?

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Dec 8, 2010 -> 01:23 PM) He really whacked the Reps in the beginning there. Basically said "ok, you just added $700b to the deficit, now what major, very popular, programs are you going to cut? You've just become part of the problem you are fighting against." On thing I have liked form Obama from the beginning is he is willing to compromise. What I don't understand is why he caved in here. I'm against 90% of what Obama wants to do, but there's a point where this Republican party is just retarded. Case in point is the idea that rich people paying a slightly higher tax is going to make things worse. That's a joke. They can afford a little more. He had all the cards in this fight. Worst case nothing gets done. Unemployment benefits end and the tax cuts end too. You know who people get mad at? The GOP. 95% of the voting public just got their taxes increased because the Republicans were protecting a small minority. Benefits got lost because of the GOP. The people who are hurt by that move aren't the rich. Even for the moronic democratic party, this would have been an EASY message to communicate. Best case, Obama gets what he wants - unemployment benefits remain and tax cuts are extended for everyone not making a middle class living. The government doesn't take another deficit hit. Win-win-win. Instead, he's a coward with no principles he's willing to stick with. This is my biggest issue with Obama. I'd have more respect for the guy if he told the idiots in Washington (both sides) to shove it. The best leaders don't care who they piss off, they do what they think is right. And yeah, that video is nice to show that he can say it, but let's actually see him DO it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 7, 2010 -> 11:26 AM) First point...that actually happened. The Dems finally broke a nearly-year-long filibuster on doing that back in September. Second...the payroll tax cut on the employer side is also very similar in its impact. Which did they do back in September?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 7, 2010 -> 09:34 AM) You can't possibly think that any large percentage of UE benefits recipients are just taking a holiday. People are out of work and in most fields, hiring is way smaller than applicants. If you want to argue that the cost is too high, then I can at least understand the argument. But this weird idea that the UE benefits recipients are just a bunch of lazy people is laughable. I'm just saying that if you let those people know that in 6 months there will be no income coming in, guess what, they might have to change gears for a couple of years and take a job they normally wouldn't. I was there too. I didn't have a job after law school for almost 2 years. I got 2 part time jobs to pay the bills until I got something. It's obviously a tough situation. I'm not saying it's not. I have the same view with all types of government aid like that. It often times stops being a band aid and becomes a crutch. Provide someone a house to live in, next thing you know they're demanding a better a house and payment of their bills. CLEARLY IT'S NOT THE SAME SITUATION, but my attitude towards fixing the problems tends to be the same - provide temporary relief, but let people know that decisions will need to be made because it won't continue forever. And that's not to say that the government should just stop payment and do nothing else. I still think taking that money and giving small to medium size businesses huge temporary tax breaks for every new employee hired would be big. The radio this morning said there was something about a tax credit for investment and R&D costs for small businesses. They didn't say how much though. I'm in favor of that idea as well.

I think both parts of this idea suck. I'm fine with keeping the tax cuts for those making under 250k. Tax the rich, they can handle the minor increase. But I wasn't in favor of extending unemployment benefits. Maybe for a short term (6 month) time period, but at some point we gotta start weening people off and forcing them to take jobs, ANY jobs, even if its not what they want. That's the only way this thing gets turned around.