Y2HH

Let's not forget that even if the US weens itself off of oil, other countries like China are gulping it up in record quantities, all they'll do is gulp up even more being that it's cheaper without the US buying so much of it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 07:47 AM) I'd pretty much agree with that. They just had so much of their own misery in the 90's and early 2000's that they couldn't stay focused on the evil U.S. Now they have a growing economy, and can actually pay to keep up their military. Upon agreeing with me on something, you created a paradox somewhere in the universe. We are all dead now.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 07:22 AM) Its not that simple. Most countries don't trust most other countries. And as for the West and Russia, they never trusted each other, even after the Cold War ended. Only to Americans is the cold war over. I believe a lot of Russian leaders believe it's still being waged.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 06:44 AM) I saw that a while ago. It was some nutters promoting the LaRoche PAC. People like that are sad, IMO. I don't understand, nor really want to understand their thought process. People like this are at their happiest when the world is burning, and miserable while it's not.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 07:16 AM) WSJ is going to be $17.99 per MONTH on the Ipad. WSJ has always been expensive...just a regular web subscription was expensive. I don't remember what I was paying yearly, but it was quite a bit...I canceled quite a while ago, so I assume from that time, it could have only gotten more expensive. Some of these print media organizations need to wake up and realize that while some people may be willing to pay a fee, they won't pay something excessive like 17.99$ a month unless they're got obvious money to burn. That's just a ridiculous price for news you can get just about anywhere else for free.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 05:49 PM) Y2HH, you're like Dennis the Menace dude. But for the record I can never recall any time where BS has been preachy or self-righteous about his lifestyle towards anybody here, or on Facebook, or anywhere. I didn't say him, in particular. I just know that this debate is ongoing between the meat eaters and non meat eaters, it's endless, it's annoying, and it NEVER resolves anything. I wish people were just happy with eating what they eat, without having to bring it up whenever possible on how they eat and why. That goes for both meat eaters who find it necessary to tell veggies why meat is good, and it goes for veggies who tell meat eaters they're murdering polluters who are killing themselves. The whole thing is an endless, pointless war. Neither side will ever win this one.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 04:43 PM) Totally. I need to stop saying things like this: Oh wait. That wasn't me. Nope, it was me.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 04:41 PM) You did? I didn't see those words. I did. I was still speaking about the same subject, in the same context. Why you think I suddenly broke context and decided to speak for the entire world as to not caring about what they eat is beyond me. It was another example of you jumping to conclusions without thinking first.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 04:40 PM) And what you need to do is go on a vacation or get some counseling on anger management. I'm not angry whatsoever. And I guarantee I go on more vacations than you.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 04:36 PM) Stop speaking for the entire human race. Lots of people care about what they eat. I didn't speak for the entire human race. I never said you can't care about what you eat. I said NOBODY CARES ABOUT THAT ARGUMENT. It NEVER resolves itself. What needs to stop, is you need to a) stop putting words in peoples mouths, and B) acting like a democratic god of all and telling people what they should and shouldn't do, and last but not least, c) stop jumping to idiotic conclusions on what people say without f***ing asking them first.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 03:46 PM) Awesome vegan rant Both sides of that stupid argument need to stop telling each other what to eat or preaching why what they eat is bad, or how, or where. Nobody cares.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 02:33 PM) Why isn't it the same? If a 15 year old is old enough to go to adult jail for posession of drugs or theft or assault, why aren't they old enough to make their own choices in regards to an unwanted pregnancy? Why aren't they old enough to drink or smoke or join the military then? It's not the same because it isn't. Simply said, different rules apply to different aspects of life. Why doesn't baseball have a field goal? Because it has different rules. And for adolescents to be tried as adults, the crime has to be pretty heinous. I've not heard of a 15 year old going to adult jail for drugs, theft or assault -- they go to a jail for people their own age.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 01:55 PM) I tend to agree, but its a reason for the law to change (which it should) - not to get mad at the school, or be upset about abortions existing at all. I'd be upset at all of them. Just because it's lawful doesn't mean schools should assist...they are, so they are sharing the blame.

If I were a parent, and that was my child, etc...I'd be furious, I'd launch as many lawsuits against as many people as I could. And I'm very against the sue happy nature of this country...but that's just beyond acceptable to me. I'd f***ing kill someone.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 01:21 PM) Oh, so you'd agree that 15 year olds shouldn't be tried as adults in criminal cases as well? Yea, because THAT'S the same.

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 12:49 PM) There should be limits. I would think an operation would be one. And I wonder who paid for the abortion? There are limits to what a simple consent form like this allows. For example, if a student were in a serious accident, just because a parent signed a consent form doesn't give them the consent to enact DNR. The same would go for operations and other surgery's, like abortions, which can lead to infections and even accidental death as a result. Certain medical decisions are not made via a simple consent form. If they did, nobody would sign them, and for good reason.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 08:40 AM) As I've stressed before...the bridge that we're failing to build right now is to this no where called New York City. Or Los Angeles. Whatever. Um, no. So wrong you are almost right again via coming around the other side of WAY wrong.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 08:34 AM) Nothing I've read is pointing to anything that dramatic. Problems indeed, but nothing like a whole new collapse over there. Where are you getting that from? A solution to Greece's budget woes remains elusive for the EU. Now, Fitch's downgrade of Portugal reminds investors, again, that Athens is not alone in the dark. Give it time. More dominoes will be falling. The whole point of the EU was to "union" together and help each other, keep things stable, etc...but now that cracks are forming and the EU is basically saying "err, we can't actually help you...", the small crack becomes a large fissure...other nations in the EU say, WTF was the point of the EU if they can't do anything when trouble arises? They're looking for international relief on these issues now...and believe me, more countries over there are going to be crawling out of the woodwork soon with similar debt issues.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 06:47 PM) Ok so the chart/map I posted the other day, it got some predictable replies but I did it for a reason. Since broadband first came on the scene for most people here about a decade or so ago, give or take, it hasn't been moved very far forward and the map was showing how other countries with similar means to us have done so much better. It wasn't a priority during the past decade, and I don't know the exact reasons but I'm going to assume, based on the ideological makeup of the last administration, that the people in charge were content to leave growth in this area up to market forces, and that it was going to take care of itself. It wasn't like it was a question of the government picking winners and losers either since there really wasn't much doubt about how broadband was going to be the backbone for other technologies in the very near future. My point was that this kind of pure dogma isn't always the best option and that these other countries whose governments have taken on more of a leadership role have gotten much better results. I'm just talking about plans, policies, and regulations, things like that - not necessarily subsidies, that is something I'll agree with conservatives on since our government has a pretty s***ty track record of ending subsidies once they've served their purpose. This brings me to another point I was thinking about. This, in a nutshell, is why I always fall left of center, but not all the way to the left. I don't want the government involved in most things except when it's necessary, or when I see some kind of verifiable evidence that government involvement in something makes things more equitable, or actually promotes growth. To a conservative, that's a philosophical question, government should never be involved in any markets except for the absolute basics like deterring criminal activity, even if the policy actually causes growth, because it's a basic principle of freedom. I agree up until the last part - I'm a practical guy, so doing something that limits growth just on a principle doesn't really make sense to me. I've personally seen my internet service go from: Since the mid 80's when I first got involved. 300baud > 1200baud > 2400baud > 9600baud > 19200baud > 28k8baud > 56kdownbaud > 128k/128k sdsl > 512k/128k adsl > 1mbit/512k adsl > 2mbit/1mbit cable > 5mbit/2mbit cable > 12mbit/2mbit cable > 24mbit/10mbit cable (what I have now). So to say it hasn't gone anywhere is nonsense. Those are amazing jumps in speed considering the sheer size of this country. Unless you live in po-dunk, good internet service exists in many places and it's getting better by the day, with Verizon FIOS and Uverse beginning to step in, we are about to enter a boon era in terms of speed. And the po-dunk areas will eventually catch on, but maybe that's where the government needs to go spread it's debt...err, wealth, to bring them up to speed. Private companies have little need to spend billions expanding networks to towns where 3 people live. The increased competition from all of these companies, and more are coming, will put downward pressure on pricing, etc. If anything, the government can push these companies to do more, which isn't a bad thing...I just don't want them to suddenly start imposing added taxes, fees and other such garbage (such as they will) the minute they get involved.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 08:10 AM) Your scenario assumes the current economic/ employment situation continues at least through 2014, when most of these provisions in the bill will take effect. The problem is that even when the economy does get better, employers are always SLOW to start offering added benefits and perks to attract new employees when the market is flooded with people looking for jobs. For the next 10 years or so, employers will have most of the negotiating power, and yes, it will take that long. We aren't out of this mess yet...the EU is collapsing before our eyes and a lot of people don't realize it yet. This may get worse before it starts to get better in a real way. We've seen nothing but a rise in the stock market, but employment rates have hardly moved, despite huge government hiring sprees.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 08:05 AM) Link That's the sad reality.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 08:02 AM) I have honestly never heard of that. I've known lots that either don't have and never had 401k's (usually small firms), and plenty of people saying that the match level has dropped. But unless the firm is in dire financial straits, I've never heard of matching just disappearing. I'd be curious to see some actual data on this though. I wonder if anyone tracks this sort of thing. I'm curious about it too, now that you got me thinking about it. My company still matches, obviously, but out of my entire group of friends, I'm the only one with a match these days.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 07:58 AM) I think you are off on the 401k thing - pretty sure the precentage of firms with 401k's continues to rise, and I don't know of a single firm anywhere that has 401k's without SOME sort of matching. The issue is that at many firms, the match rate is partially or wholly dictated by the firm's performance, so right now, the match % will tend to be lower. None of my friends companies match anymore, they did...but they stopped. And while that's a small sample size, the fact that they all had match and no longer do leads me to believe it wasn't just a few companies that did this.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 07:54 AM) This bill enshrines employer-provided insurance and actually strengthens it quite a bit by making it possible for small businesses to afford insurance. What no one has said so far in last night's discussion, and I'm half surprised and half not surprised...is that there's a reason why employers still provide insurance...and that's the GIGANTIC tax subsidy for health benefits. Even after the excise tax begins to kick in 7 years down the road, the government is still going to be providing a huge tax advantage for companies to purchase health benefits for their employees by making those benefits tax deductible up to a certain point., Employers are planning to drop insurance because of this bill? That's insane on their part. First of all, if the employer cuts 20% of his or her employees off of his or her insurance plan, and they can't get into the exchanges...their own insurance rates are going to go up because they're less of an important buyer. But then on top of that, if the employee has to go and buy his or her own health insurance, even in the exchanges, the company refusing to provide insurance is at a huge tax disadvantage relative to a company providing insurance. Simple math really. $15,000 a year insurance plan, $35,000 a year employee salary versus $50,000 a year salary, except in the 2nd case, your employee has to pay tax on the full $50,000, while in the former case, the employee pays taxes on $35,000. Where you get this wrong is that you magically give the money to the employee that the company was paying in health care costs. That's not reality. Reality is this...I'll fix it for you. "Simple math really. $15,000 a year insurance plan, $35,000 a year employee salary versus $35,000 a year salary, except in the 2nd case, your employee has to pay tax on the full $35,000, while in the former case, the employee pays taxes on $35,000." The company will NOT hand that money back to the employee, they'll keep it. In this economy, there isn't much you can say, either. Be happy you're employed. And it's going to be like this for a while before employees have any sort of leverage or negotiating power with companies. There are millions of unemployed out there that'll take that 35,000$.

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 05:59 AM) How many companies offer 401Ks and even offer matching? I believe it was self directed 401ks that killed pensions. Especially those pensions tied to the fortunes of one company. Not many anymore. A lot of companies used to do that, but most don't match these days. Since the economy dropped, companies realize they don't need perks to keep people on board, so they've cut back on such things and it will probably remain this way for the foreseeable future. If your company doesn't match on 401k, there is no point in using it, as you can do it yourself with more options available as to what you can invest in. And as another poster said (Northside), if your company decides to drop your heath care, they won't magically increase anyone's salaries, they'll keep the difference (if any) on the fines incurred. Think of inflation...if inflation were to rise, your company wouldn't be so kind as to give you a huge raise to match it, either. You'd make the same, but it would be worth less.