patrick.net

mell says

When the debt ceiling is restricted you cannot spend because you know you cannot pay back

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=s9e

the "debt limit" is just BS.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=s7P

blue is GDP, red is debt less Fed and SSTF.

"It's pretty simple. If your investment consists of $10K of the DJIA:
Case 1-- Bought index at 1000, then lose 200 points
Case 2-- Bought index at 10,000 then lose 200 points
In Case 1 the value of your investment is $8K
In Case 2 the value of your portfolio is $9.8K
Do you see why percentages are better now?"

No, I only see that using unadjusted dollars is wrong. That doesn't prove using percentages is right.

" Put the correct scaling on the Y-axis and get back to me"

Huh? What do you think is wrong with the scale? It's an inflation adjusted chart. That may be why it looks strange to you.

I am sick of both. Both parties spend excessively, both parties favor NSA, both parties are in favor of massive free trade agreements and shipping even more jobs offshore.

The United States will borrow money to pay its bills till it collapses from debt. Until then there is no other way of convincing a fiscally and morally degenerate electorate to stop borrowing money. 17 Trillion plus is the tip of the iceberg that would sink any ship. 100 Trillion plus in unfunded liabilities is a tsunami. http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Give me Liberty says

morally degenerate

Returning to the OP, here we see the other side of the Republican civil war, and the reason why Republicans have lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections. If you insist on insulting other people's "morality" (a term that people define very differently) and especially if you insist on attacking their families, don't expect them to vote for you. Misguided "morality" crusades are red meat for Republicans, even more rotten than the rotten fish that Democrats impose on everyone. The difference between midterm and general elections is around 40 million voters; within the Republican party, a plurality of primary voters can lick the blood off their rotten red meat and nominate candidates who might win a midterm, but can't win a general election.

OK, let's start by clarifying "world" vs "1st world." I read a bit about the various definitions of 1st world countries, and the most neutral seemed to be countries with the biggest GDP. The top three are USA, China, and Japan.

Prior to Obamacare, the USA already had EMTALA, which "gives" emergency care to everyone, but then even "charity" hospitals attempt to collect ridiculous prices from anyone who can pay. Where they can't get blood from a stone, EMTALA hospitals are paid via Medicare, i.e. hospitals that choose to accept Medicare must comply with EMTALA. They can make so much $$$ off Medicare that they almost all opt into it. Now, with Obamacare, we are seeing the construction of new hospitals with no emergency departments so they can profit off Obamacare elective procedures without having to sully their hands providing emergency care to the 30 million Americans who will remain uninsured (without even counting the 10 million undocumented aliens).

#2 is China. They are in the process of reforming healthcare, but they do have emergency medical insurance paid partly via government, with copayments by individual citizens both for the insurance itself and to the providers.

#3 is Japan. They don't have single payer. The government regulates provider prices, and prohibits insurance companies from taking a profit on basic medical insurance. Everyone can buy insurance via either their employer or municipality. In theory, everyone is required to buy insurance, but there is no penalty for the 10% of individual persons who choose not to buy it.

Many books and articles have been written about the diversity of medical care around the world, and the diversity of payment mechanisms. The subject does not lend itself to blanket statements. Someone with Dan's perseverance could probably work through more of the 1st world countries, but an Internet forum comment doesn't usually merit the time; anyone actually interested can read elsewhere. By veering into medical insurance, you are veering off topic in your own thread; Republicans are not having a civil war over the merits of Obamacare or other systems around the world, but rather about what to do with tea party fanatics threatening to shut down the entire federal government here at home.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/6roDPt1WYYY

a seemingly respectable man questioning the hook

bgamall4 says

William that interview should put New World Order Zionist Bigsby to shame, but he has no conscience.

Says our resident adulterous evangelical/conspiracy nut. And I'm not going to waste my time watching another crackpot conspiracy video, but I'm impressed by how you managed to watch a 45min video in less than 20 minutes.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

And I'm not going to waste my time watching another crack pot conspiracy video

Oh, a cop who knows what he is talking about is crackpot? You are a total ass.

How would you know that seeing as you haven't even watched the video? And is this your typical appeal to authority? Why should we believe him any more than an ex local government worker like yourself?
You are both loons who don't believe anyone was killed.

Ha. You posted exactly 20 minutes after the original poster. You watched the first couple of minutes and then posted up, didn't you?

And to save me the bother of watching yet another wingnut spew out conspiracy nonsense, why don't you post up the key points that make his testimony so compelling to you?

And if nobody died, you should feel confident visiting Newtown and grilling the parents. Get packing and send us your report.

Oh, and do you mean this police report? Looks very classified.

http://cspsandyhookreport.ct.gov/

zzyzzx says

Already on my long list of reasons not to have kids.

Call it Crazy says

once the kid leaves, you change the locks on the house....

Along with the above, what I'd begun to notice is how unmotivated kids are these days.

When I was 10-13 years old, I was thinking about writing screenplays, recalling the George Lucas 'Star War' originals or even mystery novels, like Sherlock Holmes, etc, and then, also dreaming about science experiments and so forth.

Today, all I see from my friends' children is playing video games, collecting a room full of worthless disposable toys, and watching cable all of the time. How pathetic and lame!

My parents never encouraged me to do creative stuff, so I'd channeled my energies, instead, into schoolwork, sports, science projects, with the idea of getting a scholarship to some science/engineering school later.

So if having kids in 21st century America means raising a bunch of useless slackers, then you can count me out.

Call it Crazy says

Rin says

So if having kids in 21st century America means raising a bunch of useless slackers, then you can count me out.

It's 100% in your hands how your kids turn out... You mold them into the adults they end up being....

I don't think so.

If you recall the 1980 Lake Placid Hockey team, the idea any group of upstarts, if motivated, could beat the world champion USSR team, a.k.a. *Miracle On Ice*, is no longer a part of our culture.

My parents weren't the best parents. And thus, we never sat around the fire, talking about some illusory tale of surviving the London blitz & so forth, but yet, I've turned out better than many of the kids of my cohorts today.

Back in the time, the world around me, was more inspiring and uplifting, than the garbage we have today with reality shows, constant hype about money making 'net denizens (like Mark Zuckerberg), or pop stars.

Today, we have an best, a faux culture and what that encourages are wannabes and copycats. And thus, even the best parents, have little chance of making their kids better than the society around them.

"oppositional defiant disorder"
How about keeping me out of this discussion? lol

The 'state of gestapo Connecticut.' What a complete and utter idiot you are.

And if I was one of the families concerned and someone like you actually did come up to me and asked me the sort of moronic things you say on here (which you are far too chicken shit to actually do face-to-face), then yes, I would consider it harassment. You, of course, are such an imbecile that you think they are legitimate questions. I'd love to see how legitimate you thought they were if your kid had been murdered.

And was that not an official report that I linked to? The one that you claimed was 'classified' by the FBI.

The other 86% live with their Ont. It pays more from social services as a foster parent.

“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.”
attributed to Socrates dialogue on education in Plato's book IV

I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on the frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words. When I was a boy, we were taught to be discrete and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise and impatient of restraint.
attributed to Hesiod (8th century B.C.)

Youth have been considered spoiled and indulgent for 3000 years by people misremembering their own youth. With today's economy, the huge cost of rent relative to wages, intense competition for jobs, and the obscene burden of student loans on the average college graduate I'm surprised only 14% live with their parents.

Today's generation is being crushed by the burdens placed on them the self indulgent baby boomers (ashamed to say my generation). Pretty amazing the baby boomers that went to college for free or a couple hundred dollars a semester, the ones that drove real estate and rents to astronomical levels to heloc their toys, the ones who drove tax burdens through the roof to pay for big balls macho military, the ones who sent all the decent jobs offshore to jack their stock portfolios are complaining about the work ethic of the people stuck with the bills.

When I got of of school minimum wage was 3.35 an hour and a decent apartment was $250 a month. Now it's 7.25 and the exact same apartment (I'm using the apartment complex my mother has owned since I was in high school for this comparison) is $1100. Sales tax 0-3% vs 7-9%. Only a few states had income tax and it was low. I bought a brand new VW rabbit (Golf) for $5100, same car today is 20k. My first house was 22k, the same size house in the same town is 120k right now. Taxes on said house were $400 now $3000. In the early 80's I was making 35k as a programmer and that was about average. Today median is 56k.. People I knew made $20 an hour on assembly lines with high school education At best salaries have doubled (and many blue collar jobs have either lower wages or have disappeared completely) in the last 30 years while the cost of living has tripled or quadrupled.

I'm sorry, but people in college and in their 20's have a lot less opportunities and are facing a much lower standard living than when I was that age. All the people bitching just don't want to admit it, they like to believe they were better people or harder workers.

bgamall4 says

bob2356 says

If it's impossible to confirm it's true then it's impossible to confirm it's not true so your supernovae theory is in the shitcan.

I just gave you a link above showing they are lucky to find 100 supernovae remains in a year. That small number makes no sense if the universe is 10 billion years old. There should be over 300 million supernovae and there simply are not that many.

Nice deletion feces for brains.

The man is an optimist.

Facebooksux says

I would LOVE some deflation.

Who doesn't want a new Porsche 911 for $20,000, or a mansion in New York or Beverly Hills for $100,000?

It won't much matter because you'll be unemployed and broke.

Homeboy says

No, I only see that using unadjusted dollars is wrong. That doesn't prove using percentages is right.

Look harder. The gain in the stock market isn't solely due to inflation.

Regardless, the point has nothing to do with inflation:

DJIA is at 16,154
S&P 500 is at 1,839

If both went down 100 points, would it affect investors the same?

No. I called her a dumb cunt and a RE shill for promoting Oakland when SHIT LIKE THIS HAPPENS THERE ON A REGULAR BASIS:

http://news.kron4.com/features/people-that-endanger-other-people-in-oakland-behave-badly/

Let's not hijack this thread though, pal.

Facebooksux says

No. I called her a dumb cunt and a RE shill for promoting Oakland when SHIT LIKE THIS HAPPENS THERE ON A REGULAR BASIS:

Interesting. So what would that make me after I called Chicago a nice city?

bgamall4 says

Tarpley must be listened to.

he he he Karl Roves famous last words.

Call it Crazy says

Rin says

If you recall the 1980 Lake Placid Hockey team, the idea any group of upstarts, if motivated, could beat the world champion USSR team, a.k.a. *Miracle On Ice*, is no longer a part of our culture.

You can't use a small subset as an example. There will always be a small minority group that will rise to the top. They are the exceptions, not the rule.

Culturally speaking, coach Brooks & that Lake Placid team inspired millions around the country. Now granted, they were clearly a minority subset, however, the fact of the matter is that they symbolized what a dedicated group of Americans could do. Without such role models, as a part of the general mythos, ppl will not rise up to the challenge in the years ahead.

In the world of engineering, the closest thing to that would be along the lines of the Navy Nuclear program, where intelligence, discipline, hard work, and team work are a part of the credo. Fortunately, this program is still around today & thus, there's a place for engineers to go, outside of corporate America & its world of outsourcing R&D.

And despite my current jaded feelings about corporate America, I still admire those who'd gone through the Navy Nuclear program and have served in it, as a career. Thus, I still have some role models out there.

Call it Crazy says

You've said you don't have kids, until you've been in the trenches dealing with them 24/7, you have no idea how tough the job is

I have a niece and I know what my sister and her husband go through, however, I don't see great things coming out of the young one. Despite my sister, not having achieved her dreams during her late 20s, at least she had some aspirations as a teenager, growing up. My niece, however, just wants to be liked and belong to something.

bgamall4 says

That would be absolutely true if the parents were not shown to be actors. But since they were actors, your analysis does not apply.

Would that be actors like the two women you said were one and the same but obviously weren't?

Try a bit of actual real proof before making such idiotic baseless assertions. And no, someone reading from notes and nervously laughing isn't evidence. Prove all the parents and relatives of every one of those 26 people are actors. Do it or just STFU.

That's your 'proof.' That's all you've got, isn't it? Dear, oh, dear.

Right. Simple question for you. Roughly how many people do you and your family know?

Roughly how many people do you and your family know?

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Roughly how many people do you and your family know?

Roughly how stupid can you stoop to be? Infinitely stupid?

Just answer the question, or are you so stupid as to fail to see the point?

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Roughly how many people do you and your family know?

Roughly how stupid can you stoop to be? Infinitely stupid?

Just answer the question, or are you so stupid as to fail to see the point?

I know them through their fake acting. I didn't personally know Liz Taylor, but I knew she was a great actress because she cried real tears. You continue to be an idiot. There were NO TEARS at Sandy Hook.

Following your logic then, it wouldn't make any difference if you saw 'real tears' or not - you'd still call them actors, wouldn't you? And how many people do you and your family know or do I need to spell it out to you why I'm asking?

bob2356 says

I bought a brand new VW rabbit (Golf) for $5100, same car today is 20k.

Not really. That $5100 VW Rabbit could not be sold as a new car today. The Rabbits of yesteryear are unreliable, cheaply built deathtraps, the "same car" to the Rabbits of today in name only.

In contrast the Rabbits of today are bigger, heavier and far more complicated yet also safer, cleaner, more fuel efficient, far more refined and reliable. If you were to take the Rabbit of today into a time machine and offer it without the VW brand in the 1970s I think it would sell in the same market niche as Mercedes if not be marketed as a Mercedes killer.

Think of it this way, as a buyer in 1976 with $18k in your pocket which would you have preferred:

This 1976 Merc 280 for an MSRP of $14296:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_W114

Or this 2014 Jetta for an MSRP of $16895:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Jetta

Call it Crazy says

bob2356 says

I'm sorry, but people in college and in their 20's have a lot less opportunities and are facing a much lower standard living than when I was that age. All the people bitching just don't want to admit it,

The opportunities are there... They don't want to work for them. They feel they should be "given" to them because they "deserve" them... You know, the "everyone gets a trophy" generation....

My favorite example of this celebration of mediocrity are the bumper stickers which proudly exclaim "My Child was Recognized at xxxx School!

Hey look everyone, its Timmy!

Give that kid a bumpersticker!

Call it Crazy says

bob2356 says

Today's generation is being crushed by the burdens placed on them the self indulgent baby boomers (ashamed to say my generation).

Nope, today's generation is too lazy to step up and take personal responsibility for their actions and future.... To them, it's always some else's fault.....

I blame Republicans and FOXnews for that.

When they go into "blame withdrawal", their eyes glaze over, they stare blankly at the horizon and they go into a catatonic freeze condition known as "personal responsibility".

Without blame and guilt trips, there is nothing, no reason to live.

New Renter says

My favorite example of this celebration of mediocrity are the bumper stickers which proudly exclaim "My Child was Recognized at xxxx School!

Hey look everyone, its Timmy!

Give that kid a bumpersticker!

What about the 'My kid beat up your honors student' decals?

tatupu70 says

Look harder. The gain in the stock market isn't solely due to inflation.

No, YOU look harder. If growth is already "built in" to the DOW, that's all the more reason to consider that any movement will be only at the top half. So, for the third time, I will ask you the question that you have yet to answer: If movement in the DOW in this century only occurs above the 5,000 level, how would it make sense to consider it as a percentage of the ENTIRE range, all the way from zero, when zero is a virtual impossibility?

Let me put it this way: Say you are standing on top of Mount Everest, and you jump in the air. It wouldn't make sense to say that you jumped 29,000 feet. You only jumped a couple of feet, because you were ALREADY 29,000 feet up when you started. Any of this sinking in yet?

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but I'm saying you have yet to address the issue. You have not demonstrated that percentage change is a good measure.

tatupu70 says

Regardless, the point has nothing to do with inflation:

False. The value of the index is based on the monetary value of the stocks represented, so to say it has NOTHING to do with inflation is complete bullshit.

tatupu70 says

DJIA is at 16,154

S&P 500 is at 1,839

If both went down 100 points, would it affect investors the same?

That's just stupid. The DOW and the S&P aren't measuring the same thing. On a typical day where the DOW changed by 100 points, the S&P would likely change by a much smaller amount. The scenario you describe, both indices dropping exactly 100 points at the same time, would never happen, barring an extremely unlikely freak coincidence.

See, here's your problem, Tatapu: You keep discrediting the use of absolute values in analyzing index movement, as though that somehow PROVES that using percentages is valid, by default. But it DOESN'T prove that. Saying "X is bad" doesn't prove that Y is good. Capiche?

Homeboy says

No, YOU look harder. If growth is already "built in" to the DOW, that's all the more reason to consider that any movement will be only at the top half. So, for the third time, I will ask you the question that you have yet to answer: If movement in the DOW in this century only occurs above the 5,000 level, how would it make sense to consider it as a percentage of the ENTIRE range, all the way from zero, when zero is a virtual impossibility?

I don't accept that it's an impossibility any more than it would be an impossibility for the Dow to go to zero when it's at 250. The odds of both happening are (basically) the same. All the companies on the index would have to go bankrupt in both cases.

By that logic, when the Dow is at 500, you should only consider the percentage above 250.

Homeboy says

tatupu70 says

Regardless, the point has nothing to do with inflation:

False. The value of the index is based on the monetary value of the stocks represented, so to say it has NOTHING to do with inflation is complete bullshit.

Well, it's a good thing that's not what I was saying then. I'm saying the purpose of using percentages doesn't depend on inflation. It's a basic concept.

Homeboy says

That's just stupid. The DOW and the S&P aren't measuring the same thing. On a typical day where the DOW changed by 100 points, the S&P would likely change by a much smaller amount. The scenario you describe, both indices dropping exactly 100 points at the same time, would never happen, barring an extremely unlikely freak coincidence.

It's not stupid--it's illustrating a point that you are clearly doing your best not to understand.

Homeboy says

See, here's your problem, Tatapu: You keep discrediting the use of absolute values in analyzing index movement, as though that somehow PROVES that using percentages is valid, by default. But it DOESN'T prove that. Saying "X is bad" doesn't prove that Y is good. Capiche?

No--that's not my problem at all. I've shown why percentages are valid, but you somehow can't understand it.

Rin says

New Renter says

My favorite example of this celebration of mediocrity are the bumper stickers which proudly exclaim "My Child was Recognized at xxxx School!

Hey look everyone, its Timmy!

Give that kid a bumpersticker!

What about the 'My kid beat up your honors student' decals?

Right up there with My Dachshund is smarter than your Stanford graduate.

Wow, I am amazed at the lack of simple math skills on display. Some remedial education is clearly called for.