Werthless makes good points. I think the 'dole' systrm may be preferable to the current status quo because people tendto buy their food based on the amount of food stamps they get, then when it goes down because their income increased, it's somehow viewed by the recipient as detrimental to their budget, when the decrease is never dollar for dollar. The big issue is the cliff we have when people meet the gross limit by a smidge one year, then we factor im deductions and they get a triple figure amount. Qhen they get a raise at work, it all goes away and THEN it actually was a detriment to their budget to have gotten a raise at work, gotten a better position and worked harder.

President Obama called someone good-looking and some people are now pissed.

Chained cpi my ass

pacino wrote:President Obama called someone good-looking and some people are now pissed.

Some people are dumb. Or, they get paid to talk/write and need to manufacture controversy for a story.

Obama calls it like he sees it, and calls men good looking all the time:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... exist.html

td11 wrote:Agence France-Presse ‏@AFP
#BREAKING: N. Korea army says it has final approval for nuclear attack on US

is this real

Obama probably gave them final approval.

Thanks, Obama.

chris matthews actually asked if women are really concerned about domestic violence

Lautenberg hasn't voted in more than a month

is he going to die? seriously? he's like 1000

He had cancer a few years ago. I think he just has various old people ailments at the moment, so death doesn't appear imminent, but he can't do his job anymore, which is why we shouldn't have reelected a fucking 84 year old person to be the United States Senate.

jerseyhoya wrote:He had cancer a few years ago. I think he just has various old people ailments at the moment, so death doesn't appear imminent, but he can't do his job anymore, which is why we shouldn't have reelected a fucking 84 year old person to be the United States Senate.

I could say Rob Andrews should have won, but he's a bit of a dick.

A dick who is also actively embarrassing the state in DC

jerseyhoya wrote:Lautenberg hasn't voted in more than a month

He's master-busting... where one filibusters themselves for an extended time.

Werthless wrote:So the GAO is misinformed, when they project that Congress will fail to implement many of the cost measures that would cause the ACA to increase the deficit? Or the intepretation of the report is wrong, and should be ____.

I don't understand all your appeals to authority. I'm not questioning your knowledge, I'm actually trying to figure out why you think the GAO is wrong here. They're not a biased organization.

jerseyhoya: The ACA won't be deficit-neutral, according to this article that cites the investigative arm of Congress (GAO)
doc: LOL at website that the article was found on
me: But the source is GAO and they wouldnt lie
doc: LOL I know everything about this and you know nothing because I eat stacks of GAO reports for sustenance.
me:

I have friends who work at GAO. it's not a 'biased' organization per se, but it is not exactly omniscient either

in a nutshell, I believe GAO is errant in the same way actuaries and underwriters are: their projection are, arguably of necessity, based on what they see in their rear-view mirror. Candid actuaries will tell you that projecting retirement benefit outlays is tricky; and that projecting medical outlays is a complete crapshoot.

Let's take one aspect of projecting health costs: prescriptions. If their baseline is now, generic/brand Rx price differentials are still material. Industry observers understand that 5 years hence that element of Rx costs will be relatively negligible. I have good reasons to doubt GAO's projections adjust appropriately for this.

The same goes for forecasts of what can be identified as primary care outlays. Primary care will look markedly different, and price out much differently, in 5 years.

You're right - the fact that I know more about this particular subject than you is not conclusive. But between me & you, I'll take the over

The over on what? That the GAO overstates the expected increase of the deficit by x? Are you purposely misreading my posts to try to get a rise?

Werthless wrote:The over on what? That the GAO overstates the expected increase of the deficit by x? Are you purposely misreading my posts to try to get a rise?

I'm not purposely misreading them. Mostly I'm not reading them at all.

Go ahead, stake what rep you have on the GAO forecast. We'll see you there.

Found this interesting....

http://truth-out.org/news/item/15435-wh ... rth-dakota

But North Dakota is also red in another sense: it fully supports its state-owned Bank of North Dakota (BND), a socialist relic that exists nowhere else in America. Why is financial socialism still alive in North Dakota? Why haven't the North Dakotan free-market crusaders slain it dead?
Because it works.
In 1919, the Non-Partisan League, a vibrant populist organization, won a majority in the legislature and voted the bank into existence. The goal was to free North Dakota farmers from impoverishing debt dependence on the big banks in the Twin Cities, Chicago and New York. More than 90 years later, this state-owned bank is thriving as it helps the state's community banks, businesses, consumers and students obtain loans at reasonable rates. It also delivers a handsome profit to its owners -- the 700,000 residents of North Dakota. In 2011, the BND provided more than $70 million to the state's coffers.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... phic-guide

Not complete, but not bad either

uhh::

Kansas legislators gave final passage to a sweeping anti-abortion measure Friday night, sending Gov. Sam Brownback a bill that declares life begins "at fertilization" while blocking tax breaks for abortion providers and banning abortions performed solely because of the baby's sex.

The House voted 90-30 for a compromise version of the bill reconciling differences between the two chambers, only hours after the Senate approved it, 28-10. The Republican governor is a strong abortion opponent, and supporters of the measure expect him to sign it into law so that the new restrictions take effect July 1.

In addition to the bans on tax breaks and sex-selection abortions, the bill prohibits abortion providers from being involved in public school sex education classes and spells out in more detail what information doctors must provide to patients seeking abortions.

The declaration that life begins at fertilization is embodied in "personhood" measures in other states. Such measures are aimed at revising their constitutions to ban all abortions, and none have been enacted, though North Dakota voters will have one on the ballot in 2014.

The bill also would require physicians to give women information that addresses breast cancer as a potential risk of abortion. Advocates on both sides acknowledge there's medical evidence that carrying a fetus to term can lower a woman's risk for breast cancer, but doctors convened by the National Cancer Institute a decade ago concluded that abortion does not raise the risk for developing the disease.

The provisions dealing with tax breaks are designed to prevent the state from subsidizing abortions, even indirectly. For example, health care providers don't have the pay the state sales tax on items they purchase, but the bill would deny that break to abortion providers. Also, a woman could not include abortion costs if she deducts medical expenses on her income taxes.

How many times is Reid going to whine and threaten to do something about the filibuster? You can fix it, Mr Reid, any time you choose to. The fact that he hasn't fixed it, despite numerous opportunities to do so, suggests to me that he really doesn't want it fixed. I refuse to believe that he really thinks republicans are going to bargain in good faith when they haven't been willing to do so for years. They make promises and break them immediately. Only a complete moron, and Reid is no moron, would continue to believe their BS. How much they paying you on the side, Harry?