Y2HH

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:15 PM) It's not impossible to decipher it if you read it. Many of the things claimed to be in there simply are not no matter how much you want them to be. I won't pretend to say I read a 1300 page bill, but I have read some of it -- I'm college educated, and I can barely understand it. It is impossible to decipher, it's so long, any page can contradict another page and I probably wouldn't have the memory necessary to remember if it did or not...and may not even contract it on purpose, it may just happen with so much stuff in there and bunches of people creating it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:14 PM) You probably wouldn't. FWIW, I haven't seen you post this question. You have now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:12 PM) When did conservatives become such post-modern literary critics? No, there's not a "counter fact check" for every retarded claim out there. For this bill, yes, there is...because it's filled with double talk and impossible to decipher lawyer speak.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:06 PM) Why would a bill forbid anyone form buying health insurance? That makes no sense. Now, they shouldn't be able to get the US government public program, which makes perfect sense. The question that I've repeatedly asked people, over and over, and has never been answered is simple -- and I still await my answer. Why in the f*** would I want to pay for/purchase/buy private health insurance if this public option will afford and deliver the SAME or HIGHER quality care as I'm receiving now, only at a fraction of the cost (and this is what they've touted it as). Let's forget that we will probably all get taxed to provide this public option...and even if we aren't and the rich foot the bill all by their little lonesome selves... Please, tell me you aren't saying that I can choose to pay for something that provides absolutely no premium service over what is free? Why the holy f*** would I do that?

The bill/bills/multiple bills being 'crafted', 'drafted', or otherwise 'created' is/are/will be riddled with double talk and extremely vague language (such as in the examples above), with words such as, otherwise, explicit, except, related, without regard, extraneous, etc., which translates to the following: It can mean whatever they/we/us/them want it to mean. That's why it's longer than War and Peace. That's why for every fact check there is a counter fact check because the language contradicts itself with meaningless babble, for example, affordability credits, whatever the f*** they are. Suck on that straw man.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 12:04 PM) You must think NSS is a liberal or something...? I merely assumed.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 11:48 AM) "out of the question" is something no one should ever say when projecting a market. Its asking for trouble, and makes me question this source. Your predictions tend to be dire on this board, usually well outside what most others predict, and this is no exception. Dow 5000? Deflation? I find these to be incredibly unliklely scenarios based on all the economic data out there, as well as market history. Yes, and us Kappies do not like being forced to agree with NorthSideSox72, but you've left me no choice... I think a little part of me just died. Thanks a lot. :/

Not sure if this was posted -- but it's alarming enough (IMO) to post just in case... http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

AJ was one of my least favorite players when he was on the Twins. AJ was one of my most favorite players when he signed with the White Sox.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 07:37 AM) Keep in mind also, that the drop in late 2008 was massive, even in some ways dwarfing the biggest long-term drops ever. People took their money out. Now, per an article I just read (WSJ or Crains, I can't remember which), people are getting back into contributing heavier in 401k's and IRA's again. That institutional bump is also probably a factor here. To reiterate -- this is a very important fact that a lot of people don't realize. The US S&P 500 figures have seen a drop of 41 percent [2008] which is huge and definitely one of the worst considering that the biggest yearly drop ever was in 1931 during the Great Depression when the S&P dropped by 47.1 percent. In comparison, the inflated numbers of the modern S&P dwarf that of where it was in 1931, so just numbers wise, a 41% decline was massive.

I've done very well in the market overall (I've been investing just under 10 years), but since the start of this year, I'm up 26.03%. I'm a boring investor, though. I use a modified buy/hold and sell on big gains system, where I buy something and hold it, if it ever goes up enough, I'll sell just enough shares to get my initial money back out of it an diversify that money elsewhere. If it doesn't go up enough, I'll just hold it. I never sell out an entire position, either. Fundamentals mean everything to me, as I own very few stocks that do not pay dividends, and the ones that do I need to see that their dividend is sustainable. I also do not like investing in companies that carry too much debt/do not have the cash/cash flow to pay it off.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 03:59 PM) http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy201...ts/hist01z2.xls So he did run deficits his first few years, but reigned in spending and cut them down year after year, and then ran surplus...thanks for posting that, I didn't have time to check earlier. Too bad Bush didn't follow up on that...and too bad Obama followed up on Bush (so far).

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 09:15 AM) I don't know who did either. Y2HH said the deficit increased under Clinton when it didn't, but I think that's about it. I meant debt. But yes, although Clinton did balance the budget and run surplus the last few years, I don't believe he ran a balanced budget his first few years, which would be deficit. I don't have time to check that, though.

QUOTE (son of a rude @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 01:26 AM) send me weekly pictures of your abs so i can see that you are doing your routine correctly Such an odd request.

I trust neither party. They're all a big rich club and none of us are members. And none of us ever will be.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 26, 2009 -> 05:06 PM) IIRC, Clinton had a plan that would've eliminated all of our debt by 2012, and I'm almost 100% sure he left office with a decent surplus that he built up. Didn't he inherit a deficit? I'm not looking at a graph right now so I don't know, but I know Reagan was all about deficits. Gore wanted to follow up with this in the 2000 campaign, so did Bush but he wanted to cut the hell out of taxes the whole time he was in office which really kind of blunted it. Then that all went to s*** when he invaded Iraq. Well, if Gore hadn't run on the "lockbox" platform, maybe he would have won Florida.

Oh, and since then, we haven't stopped increasing spending...for anything. That goes for both national and local government. They, and I don't care who you count as they, democrats, republicans -- need to get a handle on this. I think, if nothing else, EVERYONE here can agree we need to end this cycle of borrowing and spending and start getting this debt under control. And let's not pretend healthcare is the only driving force behind it -- that's one of MANY items we are running red on...and eventually the engines gonna blow.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 26, 2009 -> 05:01 PM) Ding ding ding, we have a winner. It might not happen right away but it will happen. We did it in the 90s. Well...yes and no. Clinton was on his way, but ran out of time in office. Clinton did balance the budget -- but our deficit rose under his administration, too, and although he left with surplus, we never use it to pay back debt...we just re-increased spending.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 26, 2009 -> 04:58 PM) U.S. debt dropped off in the 50's. That's because unlike now, we didn't just print money for fun. We actually paid debt back instead of borrowing from one credit card to pay the other, like we do now.

While the idea is to increase spending and run deficits if necessary during bad times, you are supposed to pay it back and run surplus during good times -- something we don't do. Overhauling healthcare will not save this government/country from bankruptcy, not on the path of spending we are on -- and doing nothing will not save it either. You're damned if you do... Thanks for finishing it for me.

I have a hard time taking Michael Moore seriously as I've seen the kind of tricks he employs in his movies -- leaving out critical words or scenes which completely change the context of the conversation he had, or in the things said. This wouldn't be so bad, but he calls them documentaries, which to me is like calling a fictitious book non-fiction. If you watch for entertainment, not a bad thing, but if you take his word as uncontested fact (which I notice a LOT of people do), than seriously...let's just agree to disagree.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 24, 2009 -> 02:26 PM) Since I work with alot of the IT folks in the industry, I consider myself one of them by proxy. But do we consider you to be one of us?!

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 25, 2009 -> 05:11 PM) The light isnt all that bad, but I'm glad you tried it out. What flavor? It was the Chocolate.

Ok, just for the sake of being sure, and in the interest of science, I bought one of those Muscle Milk drinks today (the non light variety because I just can't imagine that tasting good), and it tastes better than I remember, but it still has a bit of a weird aftertaste, but it's not that bad at all...it's drinkable now. I haven't tried the powders though, since I already have my whey and egg protein powders still...until those are gone I won't be buying anything new.

QUOTE (Tex @ Aug 25, 2009 -> 03:17 PM) When they started making out, wow, I had to edit my vote in a certain soxtalk poll . . .if you know what I mean. IN MY DEFENSE, THEY PAID ME A LOT TO DO THAT SCENE.