EvilMonkey

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 11, 2010 -> 08:30 AM) Actually, if you read the articles about this, you will see that the law also allows the election judges to use voter intent on any questionable ballots. So, they are following the law - they are just following the whole law, whereas Miller wants them to follow only part of it. While there are parts about the voter intent, after that where the write in rules are, is says very clearly what HAS to be doone for it to count. If the people writing the laws just wanted voter intent alone, they would not have added a special section saying that write ins count ONLY if written the correct way. That is pretty clear, kinda like when a law says SHALL NOT.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 11, 2010 -> 07:44 AM) The Foxnews.com banner yesterday read "Obama Debt Panel Eyes Cutting Social Security, Home Deduction." Well, it did, didn't it?

The problem is the law up there says that for a write in vote to count it has to be spelled just like it is written on the write in form. That is the law. Now people want to change it after the fact so that it benefits them? Change it before the election. Bad enough she got rules changed before the election to allow the election people to hand out a list with all the write in candidates names on it, now they want to change this rule mid stream as well? 'Abundently clear' shouldn't matter, there IS a law in place there to follow. Joe just wants them to follow it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 10, 2010 -> 10:43 AM) 5 years or more is way too long. What if you start a job and get laid off before 5 years? The protections should be much stronger than they are, and you can do that without the mandate. I wasn't touting that as an end-all, just stating that there were some sort of pre-existing coverage in place before all this hype began. It is nto perfect, but it certainly covered the situation of people switching jobs. And the coverage didn't have to be continious with one company, just more or less 'continuous' as in you didn't take a few years off because you felt bullettproof. If you switched jobs every 2 years and had insurance at each, that worked.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 10, 2010 -> 07:15 AM) SecTrans LaHood says to WI and OH governors: use the money for its intended purpose or we're taking it back. Further adds that since New Jersey is backing out of their project, they now have to pay $271M of federal funds given out for the tunnel project back to the Feds. I get it with New Jersey, its at least a meaningful reason to stop it - NJ could be on the hook for a lot of money. But for WI and OH, really, its just patently stupid. NJ WILL be on the hook for the money, one way or another. The Dems will make sure to stick it to Christie any and every opportunity they get. What he shold do is just say that he is suspending the project, indefinately, and that it will continue when they have the funds. Then tell the feds to stick it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 10, 2010 -> 08:53 AM) Thanks for all the info, Y2HH. I'll add one thing that I thought was demonstrably good in the bill - protecting those with pre-existing conditions. Even before this bill there were some protections for people with pre-existing conditions. If you had insurance for 5 years or more, and needed to switch carriers due to a job or loss thereof, the new company couldn't deny you because of a pre-existing condition. What they could do is say if you were uninsured for 6 years, then developed diabeties and tried to get insurance to cover it, you were screwed. Like trying to buy a bullet proof vest after you have already been shot.

My wife works for an insurance company, and our insurance also went down in the quality of what we receive, and costs a little bit more as well. Only good thing is the dental and vision part of it which went untouched in quality or price.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 07:49 AM) What you have to realize is that there is a more important issue here...it's about pissing off liberals. It doesn't matter if you hurt the state, it doesn't matter if you hurt the country, it doesn't matter if you waste money or cost people jobs, method #1 of playing to the base = spitting on liberals. Liberals are concerned about the environment and want rail systems? HA! New Jersey has a similar one going with a rail tunnel to manhattan that would significantly relieve driving pressure on the tunnels/bridges, but the governor continues to refuse to pay for it using the federal funds allocated to pay for it. The NJ one is not completely funded, that's why it is stopped. And with the ones that were originally mentioned, who has to maintain those systems once they are built? You now have a new expense on the books when the states are already broke. And You know that they will not be creating any kind of profit to pay for themselves. Sure, they will have 'jobs' during the construction of it, btu what about when it is done? Oh wait, union jobs to run it, I see. Another expensive bill that the states would have to find a way to pay for. That grant is kinda like someone buying you the 11 CD's for a penny from Columbia House for your birthday, and then leaving YOU with having to buy the remaining 10 at full inflated price to fulfill the committment. Only this committment never ends, just gets more expensive.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 9, 2010 -> 07:22 AM) Cook County generates something like $3B-$4B in property taxes annually. Just to put it in perspective. Cook County has what, maybe 5-6 million people or so? If its $3.5B for 5.5 million people, that's about $650 per person in populace. If that ratio roughly extends laterally, you get $195B. When I lived in cook county years ago, my tax bill was just over $2000 a year. Yeah, there were portions on their for local school districts, police, etc, but the largest by far were the county, especially if you added them all together. Cook County Hospital, Forest preserve, Road fund, etc. Half the tax bill were for Cook County things. I now pay about 2.5x that here in Will county, but my roads are better and the schools a ton better.

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 12:42 PM) That is a shame. If that's the only reason they were 'pushed out'.

How about lowering it without RAISING taxes. That's all I want. Stop raising them, stop spending.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2010 -> 09:54 PM) http://www.wsbtv.com/news/25596196/detail.html Move along, nothing to see here..................

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/volus...r-ballott-fraud http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/electio...-106727208.html http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/news_detai...er-ballots.html

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 04:28 PM) Real vote fraud should be investigated and severely punished. Imagined vote fraud like ACORN stealing elections in 2008 (and some of the left was guilty of it re: Ohio 2004 and Diebold) is orders of magnitude worse than reality and is always partisan. But, if you could provide links to reliable sources on those incidents, I'd be interested in reading them. edit: see the Maddow video in the Dem thread for the problem with trusting anything from the echo chamber. It's likely to be just as true as the "ZOMG! $200M and 10% of the NAVY!" bulls***. I'll look for the rest when I get home, bt about the Acorn thing, there have been discussions on here about voter registration and its link to potential fraud. Several of the more liberal posters insist that registration of false names is no big deal, they dont vote, etc. But in my district, I was not asked for ID, I could have been anyone voting. They didnt even really look at my signature before I voted. And with false registration, you leave the potential for abuses, especially with absentee ballots and mail ballots. And some states have it for if yu sign up to get your ballot by mail once, they auytomaticly mail it to you every year after that. No potential for missues there at all. SOME groups get paid per voter registered. Some don't. So what is the incentive to register false people if you are not getting paid per registration? Just askin.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 11:36 AM) Yep Democrats give away other peoples money. There are no Democrats that pay taxes, there are no Democrats in the highest tax bracket. I know you werent joking, but I am truly saddened that you can believe something that is so unbelievably false. Yes, the over-the-topness is for reaction sake. But how many members of Obama's admin and the house and senate were found to have not paid taxes over the last 2 years? And not because they had massive deductions, but because they 'forgot', or because they outright lied to the IRS? There was a stretch there where every damn appointment he made owed back taxes. Kerry gets caught trying to duck taxes on his damn boat, but the taxes are good enough for the average mand to pay. My statements referred to the politicians, ALL of whom like to spend other peoples money, some more than others, to make themselves feel better. But lately, the ones not wanting to also pay thier share have had a D after their name.

Well I could post how magic boxes of ballots are just appearing in races where Dems are losing, and of course we all know about the voting machines in Nevada alrwady checking Harry Reid, machines serviced by a company that employs SEIU members, or how in several races where Dems won, there were huge surges of Dem votes at the last moment, but you would just find some way to say that it was all coincidental, made up or otherwise meaningless, so why try. You had one race where they 'ran out of ballots', so they photocopied ballots to use. And two bags of those ballots just happened to appear as the vote tally was about done, with the Republican leading. But that is all a mirage, nothign to see here. Or the one where the guy and his campaign manager were caught with absentee ballots at their desk and in their car. But there surely has to be a good reason for that. Isn't there?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 09:53 PM) I dont think you understand. Democrats are a Republican stereotype. They give away rich peoples money, none of them work and all of them are on welfare. No Democrat has ever worked hard to succeed nor do they care about personal responsibility. No, Democrats give away other people's money. And then the ones in power do everythign they can to avoid paying their fair share, while trying to make everyone else feel guilty for not thanking the government for taking what they do. And why is it that with every thing that someone brings up on here to cut or fix to save money, the argument is always "Well, it's only XXX% of the problem, so that wont matter" It ALL matters. Drops add up. There is no magic bullet that will fix everything in one swoop. Take the changes where you can. Just doon't stop with only a few 'drops'. 1% here, 3% there, .5% in several other places, you start making dents that matter. The "Oh, it's only..." argument really is weak.

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 06:35 PM) If he won a seat why does he need to pay the entry? He doesn't. He is looking to cover his expenses by selling a percentage of any winnings he may make. So you stake his a percentage of what the entry fee would have been, to cover his expenses, and you would get that percentage of any winnings he might make.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 03:01 PM) 2.) If you are able bodied and are cleared by a doctor to work and are receiving the above benefits then you must perform some sort of community work. This will help associate work with benefits as well as to coop some of the costs. Now of course the Unions will fight this, but in reality it makes sense. This can be anything from litter patrol, to cutting grass, to whatever is needed from labor standpoint. You don't want to do this, then you don't get the benefits. They have cases where unions have fought against Boy Scout troops fixing up bike paths and such because that should be union work, so you are sure correct in that one. And I like your ideas, would have said very similar stuff, but already opened up 8 or 9 different arguments in this thread alone, and lose track as it is while at work.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 01:52 PM) Yes, as the foundation of progressive taxation. Why? Perhaps you should take it up with Adam Smith? Maybe we should just start this variable pricing on everything. You need to pay $10 for that movie because you can afford it, the extra $2 won't hurt you that much. We can just tack on an extra $6.99 to your internet bill every month. It's just a small amount, you can afford it and $6.99 wont really disrupt your lifestyle all that much. We both agree that taxes to a point are needed to pay for services rendered by the government. Where we disagree is what services and how much from whom to pay for those. I would be more inclined to ignore the taxes on the rich if there was a true minumum tax that everyone paid. Then everyone had a horse in the race. But since that isn't the case, I don't see why rich should be singled out to pay a higher percentage than anyoone else,just because they have it. We are just going to have to agree to disagree on that as we are not changing each others minds.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 01:48 PM) "When did you stop beating your wife?!?! Or are you saying you HAVEN'T stopped beating your wife!" They're "singled-out" for paying more taxes because they make significantly more money, can afford to pay those taxes, and aren't going to experience an adverse change in lifestyle from paying a few extra thousand a year. Have you seen the wealth and income gaps in this country lately? Do you want the government that only the poorest Americans can afford? So you are saying from each, according to their ability..................

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 01:33 PM) And everything in place to facilitate you making that money. You can't ignore the many, many external factors--a lot of which are taxpayer funded through infrastructure, subsidies, grants, tax credits, etc. Yeah, the NEA really helped me in my job. That monkey masterbation study sure helped me deliver that letterhead to the customer on time. The bridge to nowhere sure got me......well....no where. I did mention that i realized the necessary evil of taxes for SOME things. The issue is where does that list stop. Or did you read right over that? And while we are at it, why do you hate the rich so much that you want to steal more from them than from everyone else? What have they done to you? Why shold they be singled out for more taxes than you or me?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 01:05 PM) I'm a working adult who realizes that, in order to have a functional society and things like infrastructure and education and non-starving-and-homeless-elderly, we have to pay some taxes. The conservative meme of the only people who don't care about taxes are people without real jobs or poor people is insulting. Fabricating numbers that are roughly double the real numbers makes your argument look weak and disingenuous. WHen I was 16 and making $5 per hour, having $45 of my $200 gone before I even got the check seemed like more than half. I didnt' pay too much attention to taxes and stuff back then, and I was quite unhappy about it at the time. I realize that taxes of some kind are a necessary evil, but it seems to be the level of taxes and what is done with the money that is the issue. What's insulting is the idea that I am not only my brothers keeper, but your brothers, and everyone elses brothers while you are at it. What's insulting is that you and people like you thik that because I make X amount of money, that I can afford to just give Y away to the government and should thank them for taking it from me. I made the money, not you. It is the fruits of MY labor. What's insulting is people like you who think that I don't care about government waste spending when my party is in power, or when it involves the military. Waste is waste. I hate $800 hammers as much as I hate Medicare fraud. What's insulting is when people who don't pay taxes tell me that I don't pay enough taxes.

Iwill respond 1 point at a time, since I am at work and keep getting interupted with people actually wanting me to do my job. In regards to #4, I believe I misread it, and so my reply to you didn't make sense, likewise yor reply to what I said left me scratching my head. I believe you had 2 different points, one being tell us what you would cut and two, tell us how passing this new bill would create jobs. If that is what you had meant, then my reply is this. They will be all to happy to tell you just what they want to cut, so you shouldn't have to worry about that. As for what jobs wil be created by each new bill, I already pointed out to you that government can't 'create' jobs unless they themselves are hiring. All they can do is stimulate others to do so by incentivizing them, removing obsticles or just getting out of the way. And in regards to the paycheck, I threw half out there because it sounds good. Don't take it so literaly. It still sucks when you realize that 24% to 31% of your check is gone for taxes and things like social security which most may never ever see a penny of. You may notcare about those things at 15, but when you start getting a paycheck, you do.

More class warfare. Why do you hate people who earned their money? Or is it jealousy that you don't have what they have? #1 best bet wold be to compromise and extend it for 2 years as-is and revisit it then when the economy is (hopefully) better. #2 Not sure what you would have to gain from this. #3, most the new people campaigned against earmarks, so them staying away from them should be a positive. #4 Why would cutting costs create jobs? They will be happy to give you specifics on things to cut, but I have no idea why you seem to think that that will create jobs. #5 So you want to remove troops, threatening all the gains (if any) so far, just to score cheap political points? Nice. #6 sounds like a Clinton tactic, co-op the other sides ideas and make them your own. Clinton wasn't as bad a President as some make him out to be, but he was kinda scummy. I met him once and shook his hand, can see whay people like him. #7 Never happen #9 That's pretty funny. But he can always get spray-on tan. #8 The dirty secret none of the politicians wil tell you is that unless the government is hiring, they can't create 'jobs'. They can just get the hell out of the way and let businesses create jobs. Make the climate favorible for them to do so, remove obsticles, etc. But unless they hiring themselves, they can't do jack. #10 Young people get a real shock to the system when they finally leave mommy's house and get outr on thier own. Taxes take on a whole new meaning when you see your already small paycheck being cut in half to fund all these things that make you 'feel good'. #10a Why don't they?