Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:i don't even

[youtube]Ted cruz speaking on self defense and stand your ground principles[/youtube]

I watched the whole thing expecting to see something crazy. Instead, I agree with everything he said. What do you not understand or agree with?

Revolting shitsack Cruz said, rather than wrote: I would note that that idea has been around from the founding of this nation....Indeed, Justice Harlan, for a unanimous Supreme Court, in 1895....

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:
Other than that, it was a success, since the unions didn't have to concede as much as they would have if an actual bankruptcy proceeding were allowed to take place. Oh, and it has cost US taxpayers $10B.

summary

it cost taxpayers 10B, less however much UI/welfare/social services would have been required to support many, many people pitched out on their asses by "deserving automakers"

what sort of condiment do you like most on the boots you lick?

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:i don't even

[youtube]Ted cruz speaking on self defense and stand your ground principles[/youtube]

I watched the whole thing expecting to see something crazy. Instead, I agree with everything he said. What do you not understand or agree with?

You agree that the US was founded in 1895?

from the vidclip, around 3:45

Revolting shitsack Cruz said, rather than wrote: I would note that that idea has been around from the founding of this nation....Indeed, Justice Harlan, for a unanimous Supreme Court, in 1895....

I kid, of course. You're much smarter than the kind of invidious, lying creep who imagines the US of 2013 is the same place, with the same needs, as the US of its early modern industrial era.

Monkeyboy wrote:And it's not ok that Obama has done some of the things he's done. I've been disappointed in much of his presidency, but let's face it, he wasn't given much to work with after your team crashed the economy, started two wars, and alienated most of the planet.

JFLNYC wrote:

Werthless wrote:Here's a good summary of the political nature of the executive branch's foray into the bankruptcy proceedings of GM and Chrysler.

[C]alling the bailouts “successful” is to whitewash the diversion of funds from the Troubled Assets Relief Program by two administrations for purposes unauthorized by Congress; the looting and redistribution of claims against GM’s and Chrysler’s assets from shareholders and debt-holders to pensioners; the use of questionable tactics to bully stakeholders into accepting terms to facilitate politically desirable outcomes; the unprecedented encroachment by the executive branch into the finest details of the bankruptcy process to orchestrate what bankruptcy law experts describe as “Sham” sales of Old Chrysler to New Chrysler and Old GM to New GM; the costs of denying Ford and the other more deserving automakers the spoils of competition; the costs of insulating irresponsible actors, such as the United Autoworkers, from the outcomes of an apolitical bankruptcy proceeding; the diminution of U.S. moral authority to counsel foreign governments against similar market interventions; and the lingering uncertainty about the direction of policy under the current administration that pervades the business environment to this very day.

Other than that, it was a success, since the unions didn't have to concede as much as they would have if an actual bankruptcy proceeding were allowed to take place. Oh, and it has cost US taxpayers $10B.

summary

I have neither the time nor inclination to respond in detail to such a predictable screed by the CATO Institute, except to note the irony -- no, the unmitigated gall -- of conservatives accusing others of "looting and redistribution," "bullying stakeholders" (remember, employees are "stakeholders," too), "unprecedented encroachment by the executive branch" and, perhaps most outrageous of all, decrying "insulating irresponsible actors" in the same breath as TARP.

thephan wrote:Don't tell anyone...


The annual deficit for fiscal-year 2013, which ran from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30, totaled $680.28 billion, the Treasury Department said Wednesday, down from $1.089 trillion in the prior year. The latest report, released nearly three weeks late because of the partial shutdown.

thephan wrote:Don't tell anyone...


The annual deficit for fiscal-year 2013, which ran from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30, totaled $680.28 billion, the Treasury Department said Wednesday, down from $1.089 trillion in the prior year. The latest report, released nearly three weeks late because of the partial shutdown.

Werthless wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

Werthless wrote:Here's a good summary of the political nature of the executive branch's foray into the bankruptcy proceedings of GM and Chrysler.

[C]alling the bailouts “successful” is to whitewash the diversion of funds from the Troubled Assets Relief Program by two administrations for purposes unauthorized by Congress; the looting and redistribution of claims against GM’s and Chrysler’s assets from shareholders and debt-holders to pensioners; the use of questionable tactics to bully stakeholders into accepting terms to facilitate politically desirable outcomes; the unprecedented encroachment by the executive branch into the finest details of the bankruptcy process to orchestrate what bankruptcy law experts describe as “Sham” sales of Old Chrysler to New Chrysler and Old GM to New GM; the costs of denying Ford and the other more deserving automakers the spoils of competition; the costs of insulating irresponsible actors, such as the United Autoworkers, from the outcomes of an apolitical bankruptcy proceeding; the diminution of U.S. moral authority to counsel foreign governments against similar market interventions; and the lingering uncertainty about the direction of policy under the current administration that pervades the business environment to this very day.

Other than that, it was a success, since the unions didn't have to concede as much as they would have if an actual bankruptcy proceeding were allowed to take place. Oh, and it has cost US taxpayers $10B.

summary

I have neither the time nor inclination to respond in detail to such a predictable screed by the CATO Institute, except to note the irony -- no, the unmitigated gall -- of conservatives accusing others of "looting and redistribution," "bullying stakeholders" (remember, employees are "stakeholders," too), "unprecedented encroachment by the executive branch" and, perhaps most outrageous of all, decrying "insulating irresponsible actors" in the same breath as TARP.

It's very tedious to click "display this post" to see your posts, too, but I don't complain you're wasting my time. I'd be happy to argue your points/insinuations if you ever feel like making them.

pacino wrote:Libertarians are young white males who are economically more conservative than Republicans and a more nuanced, mixed bag on social issues, but a majority still oppose same sex marriage?

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:Libertarians are young white males who are economically more conservative than Republicans and a more nuanced, mixed bag on social issues, but a majority still oppose same sex marriage?

I would have thought more than 70% of libertarians would support marijuana legalization. Isn't that the litmus test for libertarianism?

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:Libertarians are young white males who are economically more conservative than Republicans and a more nuanced, mixed bag on social issues, but a majority still oppose same sex marriage?

I would have thought more than 70% of libertarians would support marijuana legalization. Isn't that the litmus test for libertarianism?

My personal, anecdotal experience is that the modern trend of young white males who describe themselves as libertarian only fit that definition consistently on fiscal and foreign policy matters. Those that I have met (including some of my coworkers) are generally of the Christian fundamentalist type.

TenuredVulture wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:Libertarians are young white males who are economically more conservative than Republicans and a more nuanced, mixed bag on social issues, but a majority still oppose same sex marriage?

I would have thought more than 70% of libertarians would support marijuana legalization. Isn't that the litmus test for libertarianism?

My personal, anecdotal experience is that the modern trend of young white males who describe themselves as libertarian only fit that definition consistently on fiscal and foreign policy matters. Those that I have met (including some of my coworkers) are generally of the Christian fundamentalist type.

I like the ones who talk about their god given rights as if the bible says anything about rights.

Werthless wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:
Other than that, it was a success, since the unions didn't have to concede as much as they would have if an actual bankruptcy proceeding were allowed to take place. Oh, and it has cost US taxpayers $10B.

summary

it cost taxpayers 10B, less however much UI/welfare/social services would have been required to support many, many people pitched out on their asses by "deserving automakers"

what sort of condiment do you like most on the boots you lick?

Do you know what Chapter 11 does? The same thing, except that the executive branch doesn't decide who gets paid and who gets ownership of the new organization.

jerseyhoya wrote:Controversies show how Obama’s inattention to detail may hurt his presidential legacy

Good on you, Washington Post

Werthless wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:Other than that, it was a success, since the unions didn't have to concede as much as they would have if an actual bankruptcy proceeding were allowed to take place. Oh, and it has cost US taxpayers $10B.

summary

it cost taxpayers 10B, less however much UI/welfare/social services would have been required to support many, many people pitched out on their asses by "deserving automakers"

what sort of condiment do you like most on the boots you lick?

Do you know what Chapter 11 does?

Q: How do the policies work?

A: About 15 million people buy health-insurance policies on the individual market. That’s about 5 percent of the population. When they do so, they typically purchase a 12-month contract. And when that contract runs out, the individual can decide to no longer purchase the plan — and the insurance company can decide to no longer offer the plan.

Most people don’t stay in the individual market long: One study, published in the journal Health Affairs, found that 17 percent of individual market subscribers purchased the same plan for two straight years or longer.

There are some restrictions on how insurance companies can terminate products. HIPAA, a health law passed in the 1990s, does require insurance companies offer subscribers the opportunity to renew their policy, so long as they continue to pay monthly premiums. If they want to discontinue a subscriber’s policy, the insurance plan must provide notice of 90 days and “the option to purchase any other individual health-insurance coverage currently being offered by the issuer for individuals in that market.”

And these are the notices that insurance plans are sending out now, to hundreds of thousands of subscribers: notices saying that they do not plan to offer the policy anymore, and information about what policies will be available.

Q: So why is this happening right now?

A: Some — or maybe even most — of the plans offered on the individual insurance market right now don’t meet certain requirements in the health-care law. They may not offer preventive care without co-payment, for example, or leave out coverage of maternity care, one of the health-care law’s 10 essential benefits.

The health law allowed plans that existed in March 2010, when it became a law, to keep selling coverage. These are known as “grandfathered plans.” They don’t meet the health law’s requirements, but as long as they don’t change much, insurers can keep offering them.

Insurance companies typically do like to change their insurance plans, adjusting cost-sharing or the benefits they offer. That means that grandfathered plans have disappeared.

These cancellations are, essentially, a lot of grandfathered plans exiting the insurance marketplace. From an insurance company’s vantage point, grandfathered plans are a bit of a dead end: They can’t enroll new subscribers and are really constrained in their ability to tweak the benefit package or cost-sharing structure. There’s not a whole lot of business sense, for a managed-care company, in maintaining a health plan that doesn’t meet the health law’s new requirements.

Q: How many people are getting cancellation notices?

A: It’s hard to put an exact number on this, given that insurance plans are the ones that decide whether to continue offering an insurance product. Experts have estimated that somewhere between half and three-quarters of those who currently buy their own policies will not have the option to renew coverage, which works out to around 7 million to 12 million people.
Q: How did this happen?

A: There are lots of insurance policies, especially on the individual market, that are really bare bones. Some argue they shouldn’t even be called insurance coverage, because their coverage is too sparse to insure against financial ruin. One report from the Obama administration, issued in 2011, found that 62 percent of individual market plans don’t offer maternity care. Eighteen percent do not cover mental-health benefits and 9 percent do not pay for prescription drugs.

The health-care law requires insurance plans to cover all of those things, and then some.

This includes spending at least 80 percent of subscriber premiums on medical care (leaving 20 percent for administration and profits), covering 10 benefit categories and providing preventive care without any co-payment.

Q: Will insurance cost more?

A: This will vary a lot from person to person. Some people who are buying a bare-bones plan right now will likely see higher premiums under the Affordable Care Act. They’ll be getting more benefits — but paying more in premiums.

Some people will get financial help buying that more robust insurance; people who earn less than 400 percent of the federal poverty line (about $45,000 for an individual) can use a tax subsidy to purchase their plan.

Based on the poll, it appears most voters hold Gov. Tom Corbett responsible for the poor direction of the state.

Only 19 percent rated the Republican governor's performance as "good" or "excellent," which is actually slightly up from the 17 percent that said the same in August.The report from Franklin & Marshall says Corbett's rating is much lower than either former Gov. Ed Rendell or former Gov. Tom Ridge at the same point in their first terms. Rendell was at about 40 percent and Ridge polled at about 55 percent.
And the poor marks for Corbett are coming not only from Democrats.

Only 34 percent of Republican responders rated his performance as "good" or "excellent," and only 37 percent said they think he deserves to be re-elected.

Forty-four percent of Republicans said they think Corbett should step aside so another Republican candidate can run in 2014; more than the 42 percent that think he should run again.

In all, only 20 percent of those polled said Corbett deserves a second term.

While it looks like an uphill battle, Madonna said, Corbett could make some moves to improve his position. One such move is the governor's plan to expand Medicaid, which polled very favorably.

"One ray of light is the Medicaid issue," he said. "That's something he could parlay into increased voter support. He's got to start gaining momentum."
The news is slightly better for those holding office at the federal level.

The poll showed 29 percent of respondents rating Sen. Bob Casey Jr.'s performance as "good" or "excellent" and 22 percent giving Sen. Pat Toomey those ratings. Both scores were similar to the results of the August poll.

President Barack Obama got the best scores, with 39 percent rating his performance "good" or "excellent." That's up from 34 percent in the August poll.