Magox

Relax, Sally. No need to be on the verge of massive coronary.

Wow! Now that is ignorant.. Yeah, it's only Cameroon. dipshit Oh, I guess you didn't catch Chef's comment? "Keep pushing that soccer popularity because you're the only one that believes it" .... In any case, it doesn't matter what you, Chef or I believe, it's a matter of taste, my comment was in response to Chef's, which of course was incorrect.

These past 10 games, starting with the win vs. Germany is the best I've ever seen the US play. They are playing with excellent possession, quick striking attacks, the defense has finally found it's footing and more importantly, We're finishing! I believe that Klinsmann is beginning to change the culture, specially on the offensive side. So many good players to choose from, this is by far the deepest team we've ever had, and it's going to make it very difficult for Klins to select who the starters will be this World cup. Pretty stoked right now. I don't know man. I think Donavon is excellent, and when he's on his game he's the most dynamic offensive player we have. However, Dempsey is more consistent. Also, I'd put Bradley right up there with them.

Well, if you put it that way, are we seriously going to get into a pissing match to see which sport is globally more popular? I mean, it's not even close.

He's one sick puppy

I was watching Morning Joe earlier today, and Tina Brown editor of The Daily Beast was asked if she thought it was a bit hypocritical for some musicians to boycott Florida because of the Stand your ground laws, when nearly half of the states in the US have similar laws, and she answered/evaded by saying that it was a form of protest, and then went on to say that the reaction and protests on behalf of Trayvon Martin have been somewhat muted, peaceful, and she appeared disappointed to me appeared to suggest that they haven't been as unruly as she had hoped. Also, I'm sure someone probably has already posted this. http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/07/22/obama-co-sponsored-2004-bill-to-bolster-justified-force-law-80171 Apparently Obama co sponsored a Stand your ground Law in Illinois back in 2004.

Is it even conceivable that one of the reasons Italy has budgetary problems is because of their welfare state and pension models?

I suppose you didn't know why they will most likely see a rate decrease. It only will make rates go lower in NY, well..... Because there really wasn't anywhere else it could go, based on existing laws. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/07/18/the-new-york-times-tries-and-fails-to-save-obamacare-from-health-insurance-rate-shock/ Take a look at the link

You are out of your mind. By no reasonable metric, can anyone suggest that this law, OVERALL is a good thing. Sure, there are beneficiaries of the law, people with pre existing's that couldn't get coverage before, the expansion of Medicaid will allow more people to get treated at relatively no cost and there will be people who will qualify for generous subsidies that will get coverage for cheaper than what they could have gotten it before the law, and in a very few select states, NY, the cost of health insurance will be cheaper (not as much as NY claims, but none the less cheaper). However, when you look at what the cost of care will be on the individual market, overall it will be significantly more expensive, on average close to 100% more for people who are below the age of 40. Which is exactly who they need to sign up for this law, in which I predict, that fewer people will enroll then what some of the estimates we have been seeing. Secondly, you scoff at the suggestion that people will lose their doctors and that they can simply pay cash. That is not entirely true, in many cases you have to have a referral from your PCP to see specialists and if they are out of network, that won't do. Not to mention that many people will take that advice because they won't go through the trouble of paying out of cash to do it. Thirdly, even you conceded that health insurance plans should be high deductible plans. What that does it forces people to shop around for services, this law does the opposite. Fourth, the cost of Obama Care is going to be significantly higher than originally estimated, wait till you see all the people being pushed out of their employer plans onto the exchanges. The cost of subsidies will be enormous. Fifth, look at what's happening at the labor force. The labor force is shrinking, more and more people are gaining part time jobs at the expense of full time employment. That is a fact and there is empirical evidence that suggests that Obama care is largely responsible for this development. Sixth, and take this to the bank, there will be a mass exodus of doctors either retiring or changing their doctor business/patient practices that will cause a deterioration of care for those that are either on Medicaid or on the exchanges. I could go on and on and on, the only reason why you think this law is a good thing is because it directly helps your families situation, however that does not mean it is a good overall thing for the country........I spoke about this law at great length before it became law, and I spoke in vivid detail in how the law would play out, and just about everything that was written is beginning to surface and I have little doubt that it will continue to be the huge shitstorm that it is.

Un !@#$ing real! Why am I even surprised?

Stoking the flames. They just can't help themselves.

I should have known Jauronimo was being facetious. Damn you Jauronimo! Damn you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are going to have to forgive me for the question, what is an EMR? Electronic Medical Record?

It's a "win-win" for the employees, however it's a lose-lose for the US taxpayer and federal debt.

Ah, I see queen race baiter has returned.

The forensic pathologist that testified two days ago, sealed the case for any rational thinking individual.

Manslaughter is what they should have tried to convict him of, but unfortunately they were too overzealous and I don't see how they could possibly convict him of murder. To me it appears he walks

What's even funnier is that before the law passed, liberals were promising that rates would be lower than what it is today, now that they see that this won't happen, the argument they are making is that the plans are going to be stronger and will cover more than the plans of today... Yes, that may be true, but many people don't need stronger plans, many people just want a catastrophic plan and don't want to pay for policies that are similar to first-dollar coverage plans. The biggest irony in all this is that they desperately NEED younger, healthier men to enroll in these plans, to even out and lower premiums because of all the sick people that will be entering into the risk pools, yet the very same people they NEED to enroll will be getting hammered the most (relative to what they are paying today), in other words they are disincentivizing and discouraging these folks with substantially higher premiums. Now you tell me, are these young fellas gonna want to pick up a health plan with more benefits than they need at these rates? Or are they gonna decide to pay the measly fine?

Btw, the preliminary results are in for Ohio's new exchange. And it is expected to see an 88% increase over what it is today. Avg. individual policy in Ohio will be north of $400. Today the average policy in Ohio today is around $240. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/06/10/ohio-dept-of-insurance-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-health-premiums-by-88-percent/ Yaaaay for Obamacare!!!!

It's funny, when I read this thread, it reminds me of bizarro world. People from the left, moving to the right, people from the right, moving to the left. etc. One thing is for certain, if this would have happened under Bush, Bizarro world would cease to exist in this thread, and everyone would have gone back to their predictable corners.

You are implying that the growing wealth gap causes people to eat less. This is demonstrably false. I read a great piece in the ECONOMIST the other day, that is loaded with factual data. Read'em and weep. " Nearly 1 billion people have been taken out of extreme poverty in 20 years. The world should aim to do the same againIN HIS inaugural address in 1949 Harry Truman said that “more than half the people in the world are living in conditions approaching misery. For the first time in history, humanity possesses the knowledge and skill to relieve the suffering of those people.” It has taken much longer than Truman hoped, but the world has lately been making extraordinary progress in lifting people out of extreme poverty. Between 1990 and 2010, their number fell by half as a share of the total population in developing countries, from 43% to 21%—a reduction of almost 1 billion people." "The world’s achievement in the field of poverty reduction is, by almost any measure, impressive. Although many of the original MDGs—such as cutting maternal mortality by three-quarters and child mortality by two-thirds—will not be met, the aim of halving global poverty between 1990 and 2015 was achieved five years early. The MDGs may have helped marginally, by creating a yardstick for measuring progress, and by focusing minds on the evil of poverty. Most of the credit, however, must go to capitalism and free trade, for they enable economies to grow—and it was growth, principally, that has eased destitution. Poverty rates started to collapse towards the end of the 20th century largely because developing-country growth accelerated, from an average annual rate of 4.3% in 1960-2000 to 6% in 2000-10. Around two-thirds of poverty reduction within a country comes from growth. Greater equality also helps, contributing the other third. A 1% increase in incomes in the most unequal countries produces a mere 0.6% reduction in poverty; in the most equal countries, it yields a 4.3% cut. " http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim

About a week or so ago, I was reading from Progressive quarters that the preliminary results (Krugman, Ezra Klein, Cohn) had come in for the health care exchange out of California, and surprise surprise! The rates were going to be anywhere from 2% higher to 29% lower. "This is a home run for consumers in every region of California," said Peter Lee, the director of the state exchange. "These rates are way below the worst-case gloom-and-doom scenarios we have heard." I gotta admit, when I read this, I was a bit surprised. It just didn't make sense, and I began to think, there has gotta to be something missing here. Then Avrik Roy who is an healthcare analyst with Forbes, made a itsy bitsy discovery. They were comparing ObamaCare insurance to the state's current small-business market where regulations similar to ObamaCare have already been imposed. Talk about misleading. Once again, the likes of people like Krugman was on the wrong side of the equation, making false misleading arguments. " The conservative analyst Avik Roy consulted current rates on the eHealthInsurance website and discovered that the cheapest ObamaCare plan for a typical 25-year-old man is roughly 64% to 117% more expensive than the five cheapest policies sold today. For a 40 year old, it's 73% to 146%. Stanford economist Dan Kessler adds his observations nearby. We wouldn't be shocked if California deliberately abused statistics in the hopes that no one would notice that in some cases premiums would more than double. In any case, the turn among the liberals who touted the fake results has been educational." http://online.wsj.co...Opinion_LEADTop

Explain how the examples brought up by lybob and other instances of the "rigging" of the system is having a substantive, meaningful impact on a large scale on the ever-growing gap in wages. I already know the answer to this, to borrow a phrase, there is no there, there. You and possibly Lybob are doing is conflating the two, and what you guys are bringing up are instances, in some cases injustices, but in the overall scheme of things, these are not meaningful contributors to the wage gap that we are seeing..... Which is what we are talking about. Do you understand the difference? I've already explained what the main contributors are, and it's primarily globalization, advances in technology and investments in stocks and private equity. Having access to private equity and special investment funds isn't any sort of injustice or a rigging of the system, it simply just means they have enough money to have this access. Nothing wrong with that. Again, and I can guarantee you this, none of the solutions or even direction that you are looking at towards trying to find a culprit will never be remotely close to where the solutions lie. You are looking to try to bring down the wealthy. Whereas the solution lies in empowering the non-wealthy with skills, education and more than anything self-motivation and desire to climb up the socio economic latter. That's where it's at.

No, what's silly is that You're conflating two separate entities. I didn't say nothing nefarious happened in finance, what I said was that nothing nefarious is going on in the overall scheme of the separation of the income disparity between rich and poor via investment income. Those that abused the system in the world of finance are not responsible on a meaningful level for the widening income disparity, those are instances. Big difference. In regards to your "rigged" statement... Tell me how the system is "rigged", please explain this I'd be interested to hear your answer. Remember what we are talking about, we are talking about income disparity on a wide scale level, so any examples you bring up, keep that in mind. In regards to your issues about food scarcity, those countries that have these issues lack proper infrastructure, capital and geographical resources to produce food. It's a problem, and sure there are abuses from people who want to take advantage of workers, but that is an issue that will have to be resolved from within their own governments. However, after living in Bolivia for a number of years, I can tell you that there are many able-working people, who simply do not desire to work, and would rather pan handle for sustenance.