Is our children learning, or is they bleeding out from friendly fire, or does that one need another round?
It's hard to put food on your family, when the dogs is all around 'em and lickin' off the blood. I say, pit bulls get real possessive around a fresh kill, but that don't hardly say it.
Y'all don't understand Texas. Instead of using tax money to pay for abortions, Texans just leave guns around the house. Pretty soon, they got the number of kids they wanted, and maybe room to try again. Kids what ain't been born yet is innocent, but then they're born in original sin, which makes 'em fair game.
If your unwanted babies ain't big enough yet to lift a firearm, invite some of the neighbor children over on Jesus Day for iced tea and target practice.
See, Texans are smart. They get to see the kids before deciding which ones to keep. Iffen they wants to keep one particular child, they bring that one to church for the day, while the others go to heaven and make room for the next round.
From the article: "Our own infrastructure is far from admired worldwide, and the trend doesn’t look good from where I’m sitting."
But tovbot keeps telling us the Hyperloop is here!?!? Does that mean tovbot is turning against the Hyperloop, or that tovbot doesn't read articles before posting them?
Please come back! Please.... Please!
He is probably vacationing in Syria and Iraq. After all, he does deserve some peace and quiet.
After successful careers in advertising, network security, and numerous other fields, AF retired to become a pack leader for the Girl Scouts. It's cookie season, so they're busy going house to house. You'd be amazed how many cookies people agree to buy when AF gets through persuading them; I hear this is their busiest year in decades.
"Those bills are higher because of Obama"
As your chart shows, medical spending is now higher than ever before, despite promises to lower costs and reduce average premiums by $2,500/year. "Thanks, Obamacare!"
Struggles to Pay Medical Bills
For every one anecdote like this, there are literally thousands of people who signed up for Obamneycare and then couldn't keep their insurance, their doctor, or their drugs. Democrats lost in sarcasm can't get it through their heads that Obamneycare is a bad policy that leaves even the purported "beneficiaries" struggling to pay medical bills. That is why the policy continues to poll around -10, year after year, and has caused Democrats to fall to their lowest point in more than a century. Republicans have taken both houses of Congress, and 30 states have outright Republican control of their legislative and executive branches (Democrats retain only 7 states). Republicans have only one majority position: opposing this legislation. "Thanks, Obamacare!"
BTW, consider the amazing steadiness of that -10 number. For every elderly opponent who shuffles off this mortal coil, and for every young brainwashed believer who becomes old enough to vote, two former supporters realize the legislation is bad for their health.
Then Reagan came in, winning 50.8%, vs. Carter's 41% (John B Anderson drew off 6.6% of the electorate who didn't understand how our elections work)
Anderson voters understood better than you do. By your own math, even if all of them had voted for one of the major party nominees, the result would not have changed.
For example, even if they had all voted for Carter:
Carter 41% + Anderson 7% = Carter 48%, vs Reagan 51%
Was it Putin, or was it people who want to make Putin look bad?
The Kremlin is trying to promote the latter explanation. Looking at recent Russian history and Putin's hero Stalin, the assassination should raise alarms.
Following the example of Stalin, Putin can now 'round up the usual suspects' (his opponents and any possible rivals), and force them to "confess" in show trials. Already Putin's regime arrests the families of targets in order to force cooperation, and that pattern seems likely to continue. Once a target has "confessed," he cannot save himself, but if he submits to punishment (e.g. execution) then his family may be spared.
Stalin's purges continued for years, and included murders around the world (e.g. Trotsky in Mexico City).
Some Russians, including Putin, revere Stalin to this day.
@Patrick, is "The Original Bankster" also rootvg? They don't have the same IP address, but a rootvg programmer would easily get around that. Their comments are very similar, with "The Original Bankster's website" linking to language seldom used by anyone other than rootvg (see above). Today TOB said (s)he was leaving, and suddenly the violently deranged rootvg returns for the first time since May, with the same agenda:
Whether Republican or Democrat, it's always the same people in charge: the bankers, was the same during Washington's time with Alexander Hamilton. Washington didn't want a central bank. Tough shit, we got one.
What you really want to watch coming up are rising interest rates. We need to return to the Volcker policies and we're going to, courtesy of a new Fed chief appointed by Jeb Bush who's going to win in 2016. Do you know who these people are? How do you think Dubya just sort of appeared out of nowhere as the heir apparent to Clinton in 1998-1999? How the fuck do you think Jimmy Baker and the Republican wrecking crew appeared in Miami within a few hours of all that shit going down with the chads? You know what Prescott Bush did before serving in the Senate, right? You also know that HW was in Dallas the day Kennedy was shot...right?
[BTW, GHWB said he was in Houston that day. Also, GW Bush didn't appear "out of nowhere" to run for POTUS; he was already a 2-term governor of Texas, one of the largest states in the union. Also, the 2012 election proved rootvg can't predict who will win the Presidency.]
I agree with iwog that rootvg is dangerously disturbed. In fact, rootvg seems trapped in a loveless, childless "Brokeback Mountain" marriage, and fantasizes about bringing his guns to San Francisco in much the same way the ISIL nutjobs behead Christians and destroy statuary. The reasons tend to be similar also: they can't stand the relentless disproof of their doctrine, for which they have sacrificed so much, and so they go berserk against objective reality.
"Is Russia going to pressure the US to investigate the murder of Paul Wellstone?"
The plane was manufactured by a subsidiary of Raytheon....
Health is now 6% of the economy:
Medical spending is around 20% of GDP, and growing with Obamneycare. How do you get "6% of the economy" instead of 20%? Is this your way of acknowledging that most Obamneycare spending has nothing to do with health?
[Update: I see now what you did there. Your graph shows employees in "health care" divided by total population (not labor force). That isn't the conclusion you put on it.]
"One side side gets the action, the other side gets the music." Our elected politicians say they support freedom, democracy, peace, etc. That's the music. The actual money goes to fomenting war all over the world, because the elected politicians are financed by the military industrial complex and the medical industrial complex. That's the action. The issue with Assad was, he got his weapons from Russia instead of American manufacturers, so he needed to be replaced by a more lucrative client state.
One thing weird about Ukraine is their rather violent hooligan subculture.
That's the closest you're going to get to pre-modern war, on video
Interesting video. There don't seem to be any weapons, or serious injuries. When guys fall down, they are left alone for as long as they stay down; later, they can get up and walk away. Although they are opponents, they look like they are ready to play again next week, or meet for a drink at the bar.
It's a bit like PatNet: we can type at each other, but nobody gets injured.
If this were an ISIL video, the losers would be decapitated, their homes pillaged, and their families kidnapped.
A fine actor cast in many different roles, he lived long and prospered. I would have liked to see him continue, but none of us can forever. He will be missed by many, including me.
Let's go after "the 1%", they have 40% of the money now.
You mean the 1% or the 0.1% The former mostly works for their money while the latter consists of the idle rich.
Either way, it's mostly a distraction. Relieving Bill Gates and Warren Buffett of their capital would reduce their donations to the Gates Foundation, but would not change the fundamental dynamics of public policy. The larger issue is a legislature run by the revenue recipients: foreign policy brought to you by the military industrial complex, "health" policy brought to you by agribusiness (subsidized HFCS) and the medical industrial complex (the cult of eternal life through infinite spending, don't worry about HFCS exacerbating your morbid obesity, you're insured!). Capital reflects mainly the past, but we live in the present and we can only ever change the future. If you want to live a longer and healthier life, with perhaps the opportunity to achieve your own potential instead of being trapped on someone else's treadmill, then you should consider what policy environment might enable that result. Saying "go after" some small group sounds like scapegoating. When a simple fracture costs 100x more to set here than anywhere else on earth, and includes a risk of MRSA, the problem is policy that incentivizes artificially high prices and spreading infections that result in more costs. Mayo Clinic negotiates with insurers to set fees based on diagnosis, which is a better model than fee for service. That kind of inquiry can make a real difference, rather than red team vs blue team, "go after" these people or those people.
It may be that non-voters include folks who might vote for a new third party candidate....
In every election, I see interviews with people who say they've never voted before, even though they've been eligible for a long time. They say they were waiting for the right candidate. For some, that was Barack Obama; for others, Ralph Nader; for others, Ross Perot. In 1980, David Koch ran for President against Ronald Reagan. A serious and self-financed candidate, e.g. Mike Bloomberg, could "get out the vote," if part of a ticket that has broad enough appeal. Forbes lists annually dozens of potential candidates who could self-finance much more than the major party candidates spend, and they have a variety of opinions other than funneling government $ to corporate sponsors. The question is, of all those billionaires, which ones would step off the mega-yacht and into a real challenge, e.g. Rin's scientific research or Ross Perot's quest for the Presidency. American cultural expectations have shifted from the days when Teddy Roosevelt and Winston Churchill (half American) risked their lives for their countries and later ran for office.
I would vote for a Ron paul/Elizabeth Warren ticket.
yeah, that is something a confused person would say
Think of what those two candidates agree on: reigning in the big banks that control the Fed, prioritizing domestic interests instead of endless war, etc. Of course any two people are going to disagree on many things, as you would know if you didn't ignore everyone you disagree with. The relevant question is, what would two people agree on and actually do.
If the major party candidates pull in a minority of the votes, won't that be something?
The major party candidates pull in already a minority of eligible voters. There is an opportunity for an independent candidate who can self-finance, if (s)he is willing to endure the slings and arrows of outrageous commercial media. As Ron Paul was ignored and then mocked, a self-financed candidate would endure 10x more of the same: silence and then a mud-slinging contest, if the revenue recipients (military industrial complex, medical industrial complex) start to take the candidate seriously. The military industrial complex has owned big chunks of the media outright (e.g. NBC), while the medical industrial complex pays the rent (if you watch the evening news, count the ads and see which industry is calling most of the pipers' tune).
GSK got fined $3 billion in America for illegally marketing toxic SSRIs for unapproved (off-label) uses. Also they were forced to stop advertising the SSRI Paxil (paroxetine) as "not habit forming" on American TV after overwhelming evidence showed it caused physical dependence.
This is at least the 12th tovbot thread quasi-spamming for the Hyperloop. There were at least 10 as of my last count, plus at least one more since then. The threads have in common tovbot's usual superficiality; if Comrade Peter Christiansen had actually read the article, he would know it's about a plan to build a 5-mile test track that is not designed ever to achieve anything like Hyperloop speeds. Artificial intelligence can play Atari now; the tovbot script should be able to post comments in its own threads instead of always creating new ones.
The problem is that the Republicans approve of all the evil things Democrats do like what you mentioned. In fact, the Republicans want to expand the evil.
Michael Moore made a similar point in one of his films, I think Fahrenheit 9/11. The choice is between the D's, who talk sweetly while making secret deals with their corporate sponsors, and the R's, who campaign brazenly on their sponsors' interests and then give them an office in the west wing. For the D's, being nasty is a by-product, a necessary evil; for the R's, it is the point, having the power to become wrath and declare vengeance. Neither party is truly liberal or conservative, both have become imperial patronage networks maximizing revenues for their sponsors.
Grubercare contains built-in bailouts ("risk corridors") for insurers.
The failure of Grubercare seems unlikely to result in single-payer though, as many single-payer advocates warned in opposing Grubercare. There are several reasons:
In 2008, most Americans supported single-payer, but in 2009, the D's controlling both houses of Congress refused even to hold a hearing on that. The industry subverted the "hope and change" thing, and bought itself another 8 years (and >$10T in waste, fraud, and abuse) at public expense. The R's got an additional bonus: voters blamed D's (correctly), and separated the D's from power (alas the R's are the fire compared to the D frying pan).
Like most Americans, I used to support single payer. Since watching the enactment of Grubercare, however, and for the reasons Megan McCardle explained, I have concluded the only solution is a genuine free market system. Repeal the Rx mandate, put everything on amazon.com, and let the free market sort it out. There is no precedent for a government-run program reducing costs, because in a democracy (such as it is) government programs are inherently constituency-driven and inevitably captured by "stakeholders" (revenue recipients). There is ample precedent for market systems reducing costs, as the current tech industry and other industries have shown. More than a century ago, steel prices plummeted the way tech plummets now; then the same happened with cars, the price of a Model T Ford dropped by more than half. Markets can do that, when they are allowed to function. The plunge in steel prices transformed the American landscape: skyscrapers, cars, bridges. Plunging tech prices should likewise have transformed the medical sector, in the direction of lower costs, which is why the entrenched "stakeholders" (FKA "special interests") used government to increase spending instead. The Democrats had a chance to enact real change, but they chose Grubercare instead, and now the momentum towards a public program (whether single payer or a "public option") is gone.
By the way, has anyone notice that the aspect of the ACA everyone is complaining about is the individual mandate (tax) and that idea came from Republicans as a response to Hilary's health care reform attempts. Republicans insisted on the individual mandate to pay for the cost of expanding coverage. So, we're all complaining about a Republican idea. Don't forget that.
I had noticed that, but I had also noticed that when the R's held both houses of Congress and the WH, they did not impose this plan. The idea originated on their side of the aisle, but apparently as a poison pill to stop Hillary's Plan. She swallowed, and her plan died. She campaigned on it again in 2008, when then-Senator Obama opposed it. When the plan proved unpopular, Democrats' defense was, "Hey, we imposed a Republican plan." WTF? That's like if you buy a puppy and the pet store gives you a gorilla instead. I didn't want a gorilla. And now the Democrats keep saying, "It's a gorilla." Yes, I noticed, that's the problem.
Either way, I suspect the idea originated with industry, because all four House bills (when the D's controlled the House) had the same idea, as did the Senate bill that the House eventually demon-passed and the President signed. The R's made sure never to enact it, never even to vote for it, so only the Ds' fingerprints (and signature) are on it now.
Update: "Vermont officials ignored "obvious signs" of problematic billing by health care economist Jonathan Gruber, the state auditor said in a memo released Monday.
Gruber was working under a $400,000 economic modeling contract for the state of Vermont.
"The evidence suggests that Dr. Gruber overstated the hours worked by the RA and that the Agency of Administration ignored the obvious signs that something was amiss," Hoffer wrote. "Even if the State was not overly concerned about the first invoice, Ms. Lunge and Mr. Costa should certainly have been alarmed by the second.""
City living is for city dwellers ready for the mix of life that it brings.
I'm curious to check if you are consistent on that point, or if it might be a rationalization for hypocrisy or toxoplasmosis or something similar. For example, do you support your neighbors' right to keep and bear arms? (Gun owners have a right specifically enumerated in the Constitution, while pet owners do not.) Also, how do you feel about motorcycles blaring at 3am? I infer from your comment that if an NRA member blasts the volume on his Harley, while sporting his hunting rifle, through residential neighborhoods, waking schoolchildren and terrifying residents, you have no objection?
In one of the links I posted above, a mother said, "I have no regrets about that day," referring to the day one of her dogs killed her firstborn child; if the family had not kept a dog locked indoors, the child might still be alive. If Diane Whipple had chosen to keep and bear a gun, she might have survived instead of being killed by her neighbors' dogs.
Is that the sort of city experience you want, where everyone has to pack heat in order to walk safely in their own building? You want everyone to carry a gun on every trip to the laundry? Or have you simply chosen "which side [you're] on," without thinking through the consequences? I am genuinely curious, because when I read of a mother who has "no regrets" about the day her dog killed her son, I think something has gone wrong with her brain, perhaps a canine analog of toxoplasmosis. Most people are familiar with the stereotypical 'crazy cat lady,' and there seem to be some equally crazy dog owners too.
Don't live in an apartment if your tolerance for anything outside of your own wonderful behavior. [Sic.]
Don't live in a concrete jungle if you can't tolerate life without being surrounded by animals - move to an actual jungle, and see how long you survive there.
The man at Vanguard who pioneered the low-fee funds
His name is John Bogle, and his book, John Bogle on Investing: The First 50 Years, is on amazon.com.
Cancer drug prices "unreasonable, unsustainable and immoral"
- Billy Tauzin