Get ready for this?

Gary Abraham needs to keep in mind that all business done on Wall street is voluntary, at least it was before government involvement.

Gary claims that shareholders have attempted to get board directors to limit the pay of the CEO's and to no avail and yet they remain shareholders. I wonder why they remain shareholders?

Gary says, "There are hundreds of examples of the awarding of huge pay packages by boards of directors to executives of companies whose stock performance has resulted in large investor losses." And yet, in spite of 'large investor losses', there are still investors. Again, I wonder why?

Gary says, "Decisions made by this talent have resulted in massive spending by the government to rescue failing companies." Correction: Decisions made by POLITICIANS, HUNGRY FOR LABOR UNION VOTES have resulted in massive spending by the government to rescue failing companies.

Sorry, Gary, your assertions don't pass the smell test.

Gary also hints that executive pay should be a multiple of the average worker. Anyone who want's their pay dictated by someone else's wage must not be a very productive worker. Would that describe you, Gary?

The GLBT bill was snuck into the defense bill because it was weak and unnecessary and unable to stand on its own. Had it applied for government health care, the death panel would have denied it coverage.

How is this law going to be administered? Are we going to have to hire psychologists to interrogate suspects to determine what their attitude is towards the victim? Here come the 'thought' police.

If one of our GLBT friends gets beat up, is he/she going to feel better about it if it was done by another GLBT perpetrator? Is it also a hate crime when a gay guy beats up a straight guy?

If property is damaged or stolen, will the damage be greater or less depending upon the attitude of the perp? What happens to a straight perp who's just out on a crime spree stealing property from everybody without regard to who it is and happens to snag a gay guy's stuff along with everybody else's. Is the crime against the gay guy a hate crime while the crime against everybody else is not?

This thing is absolutely ridiculous and it's just another liberal pandering for more votes, as if that were necessasry from the GLBT community.

Get ready for this, sounds like my policy through Medica; deny, deny, deny, find loop hole, deny, deny, deny. I don't think anything can be worse than what I currently have

Urban Chick - I totally agree. Sure, it sounds like a headache what those postal folks are going though, just like my headache - except that I'm PAYING FOR INSURANCE and Still having these troubles. I pay a small fortune every month, but still my deductible is so high I can't afford to go to the doctor. Its robbery. I'll take the government plan any day.

Gndydncr wrote:

If one of our GLBT friends gets beat up, is he/she going to feel better about it if it was done by another GLBT perpetrator? Is it also a hate crime when a gay guy beats up a straight guy?

Does a straight guy have a sexual orientation? Then, yes...if it's a hate crime.

Gndydncr wrote:

What happens to a straight perp who's just out on a crime spree stealing property from everybody without regard to who it is and happens to snag a gay guy's stuff along with everybody else's. Is the crime against the gay guy a hate crime while the crime against everybody else is not?

Do you know what a hate crime is?

Gndydncr - I think the definition of a Hate Crime is that it is meant to cause fear in a given population. The lynchings in the South is an obvious example. Or the Swastica's painted on synagogs is another. Its not random, its specific - so your robbery analogy doesn't fit the case of a Hate Crime. But, someone going to gay bars and beating people up in hopes of scaring others from going to that bar - thats a hate crime. It hopes to shut down a gay business and diminish the gay community. Or, when someone spray paints Fa* on a persons house, and does other vandilism in hopes they will move out, thats a hate crime, in addition to the crime of vandilism, because it is specific and has a broader purpose to incite fear. Hope that helps.

gzaiger wrote:

Urban Chick - I totally agree. Sure, it sounds like a headache what those postal folks are going though, just like my headache - except that I'm PAYING FOR INSURANCE and Still having these troubles. I pay a small fortune every month, but still my deductible is so high I can't afford to go to the doctor. Its robbery. I'll take the government plan any day.

Didn't you post earlier that you had some preexisting condition? Sounded like you didn't have health insurance because of that.

So if we get a Public Option and you don't like the service, who are you going to call?

The President? He might suggest a pain pill instead of any expensive surgery. At any rate it won't be your choice anymore.

urban chick wrote:

Get ready for this, sounds like my policy through Medica; deny, deny, deny, find loop hole, deny, deny, deny. I don't think anything can be worse than what I currently have

It can get worse. You can change insurance carriers. You can't change governments.

gzaiger wrote:

Urban Chick - I totally agree. Sure, it sounds like a headache what those postal folks are going though, just like my headache - except that I'm PAYING FOR INSURANCE and Still having these troubles. I pay a small fortune every month, but still my deductible is so high I can't afford to go to the doctor. Its robbery. I'll take the government plan any day.

Here's a flash for you, gzaiger. You will be paying for the government plan as well. Count on your paycheck to diminish. Sooner or later, the credit card is gonna be maxed out and then you will have to pay -- in spades.

Gndydncr wrote:

Gary Abraham needs to keep in mind that all business done on Wall street is voluntary, at least it was before government involvement.
Gary claims that shareholders have attempted to get board directors to limit the pay of the CEO's and to no avail and yet they remain shareholders. I wonder why they remain shareholders?

It is the job of the CEO to keep the price of shares high for the shareholder, is it not? Isn't that exactly what Kenneth Lay was doing?
Oh yey. He held a big chunk of the stock. But he could get out in time.
"Over and over again, ideology trumped governance, and now our whole economy is paying the price." Allen Greenspan

jcf817 wrote:

<quoted text>
Does a straight guy have a sexual orientation? Then, yes...if it's a hate crime.
<quoted text>
Do you know what a hate crime is?

Yes, of course a straight guy has a sexual orientation. I'm not sure why that is evan a question.

A hate crime is any crime the district attorney says is a hate crime. The problem is that this is entirely subjective and not at all objective. A person is being punished for their attitude. In other words, we are policing thoughts. This takes all objectivity out of the justice system and that makes us all losers. Sad, really.

Actually the bottom line is that every crime is a hate crime. People don't commit love crimes or platonic crimes. If we really wanted to be honest and straight forward with this (a rare commodity in a political world), it would be called a 'vengence' crime. In other words, someone wants to hit back twice as hard as they were hit.

gzaiger wrote:

Gndydncr - I think the definition of a Hate Crime is that it is meant to cause fear in a given population. The lynchings in the South is an obvious example. Or the Swastica's painted on synagogs is another. Its not random, its specific - so your robbery analogy doesn't fit the case of a Hate Crime. But, someone going to gay bars and beating people up in hopes of scaring others from going to that bar - thats a hate crime. It hopes to shut down a gay business and diminish the gay community. Or, when someone spray paints Fa* on a persons house, and does other vandilism in hopes they will move out, thats a hate crime, in addition to the crime of vandilism, because it is specific and has a broader purpose to incite fear. Hope that helps.

How do you define fear. Some people are afraid of mice and snakes, others are not. If someone spray paints "fatso" on the side of my house, is that a hate crime? What if it was my wife who did the painting? We've had instances where the apparent victims were actually the ones committing the crime, just to stir things up. Can they be charged with a hate crime against themselves? Its a stupid law and so unneccessary. Make the penalties for committing the crimes stiffer regardless of who commits them or why and forget about the psychoanalysis mumbo jumbo. Its just a ploy to give the trial lawyers more grist for their mill to get richer from.

share holder wrote:

<quoted text>
It is the job of the CEO to keep the price of shares high for the shareholder, is it not? Isn't that exactly what Kenneth Lay was doing?
Oh yey. He held a big chunk of the stock. But he could get out in time.
"Over and over again, ideology trumped governance, and now our whole economy is paying the price." Allen Greenspan

How high is "high". High is relative. If you're ready to sell, you think the price is high while the person ready to pay you your price thinks the price is low (otherwise he wouldn't be buying). Sometimes you don't much care what the price is because the dividends it pays is what you're interested in. The letter writer was claiming that the shareholders and investors were losing money hand over fist and didn't like the decisions the board of directors and yet they remained shareholders and investors and I'm saying that doesn't make any sense.

Gndydncr wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, of course a straight guy has a sexual orientation. I'm not sure why that is evan a question.
A hate crime is any crime the district attorney says is a hate crime. The problem is that this is entirely subjective and not at all objective. A person is being punished for their attitude. In other words, we are policing thoughts. This takes all objectivity out of the justice system and that makes us all losers. Sad, really.
Actually the bottom line is that every crime is a hate crime. People don't commit love crimes or platonic crimes. If we really wanted to be honest and straight forward with this (a rare commodity in a political world), it would be called a 'vengence' crime. In other words, someone wants to hit back twice as hard as they were hit.

So you're saying that manslaughter and first-degree murder should carry the same penalty. Got it.

jcf817 wrote:

<quoted text>
So you're saying that manslaughter and first-degree murder should carry the same penalty. Got it.

Another rational post from the obtuse left!

jcf817 wrote:

<quoted text>
So you're saying that manslaughter and first-degree murder should carry the same penalty. Got it.

No, you don't get it. Those are two separate crimes. Manslaughter carries its own penalty regardless of the race, religion, ethnic background, or sexual orientation of either the victim or the perpetrator. Murder carries its own penalty regardless of the race, religion, ethnic background, or sexual orientation of either the victim or the perpetrator. It's not a single crime that gets either a murder tag or a manslaughter tag depending upon how the lawyers get done sorting out the supposedly "non-dicriminatory" elements of the persons involved. Got it?

Gndydncr wrote:

<quoted text>
No, you don't get it. Those are two separate crimes. Manslaughter carries its own penalty regardless of the race, religion, ethnic background, or sexual orientation of either the victim or the perpetrator. Murder carries its own penalty regardless of the race, religion, ethnic background, or sexual orientation of either the victim or the perpetrator. It's not a single crime that gets either a murder tag or a manslaughter tag depending upon how the lawyers get done sorting out the supposedly "non-dicriminatory" elements of the persons involved. Got it?

You have proved my point. Thank you.

The crimes have to be the same.

jcf817 wrote:

<quoted text>
You have proved my point. Thank you.
The crimes have to be the same.

Huh?

The “public option” is Democratspeak for the government getting into the insurance business. It taxes you, it collects a premium, and then it gives you crappy health care -- after a long wait.“Opt out” is something new they thought of over the weekend. It says that the public option would be, well, an option, and that individual states could opt out of it. They could decide, by a vote of their legislature, that they don’t want their residents to be clients of the federal public option.

The opt-out provision lets Democrat senators from moderate or conservative states go home and tell their constituents that they didn’t vote for the public option for their particular state. These senators can pretend to oppose it while simultaneously supporting it.

But like I said, it’s all a con. Nothing more than a shell game intended to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people. If the opt-out option goes forward, it is the same as imposing the public option on the entire country.

There are three reasons why I say that.

The first is that while a state may choose not to benefit by the public option, it may not choose not to pay for the public option. The operating deficits of the public option -- and there will be operating deficits -- will be made up out of the public treasury. Residents of all the states pay income taxes which go into the public treasury. The same is true of all other federal taxes, on individuals, businesses and transactions. It all goes into one pot.

So everybody pays for the public option, even if they or their state choose not to benefit by it.

The second reason is like the first.

The public option is essentially a false insurance plan offered by the federal government. False in that, unlike real insurance, it won’t be a shared-risk pool, it will be an indemnification. It won’t have to balance its books, it won’t have to operate in the black. It will be playing by a different set of rules -- most significantly the rule that it can suck money out of the treasury any time it wants. It will quack like a duck, but bite like a tiger -- especially if you’re a real insurance company.

The public option won’t compete with real insurance companies, it will undercut them. It will “sell” health-care coverage at a loss and destabilize the real insurance companies that try to match its premiums.

And that’s no good. First, because most of us rightly trust our insurance company more than we trust our government. Second, because the insurance-company money lost in the opt-in states will have to be made up in the opt-out states.

So in an opt-out state, not only will you have to pay taxes to support a program you don’t use, you’ll have to pay higher insurance premiums to bolster a company being gutted by the public option.

Thus far, opt-out is a lose-lose -- and we haven’t even gotten to the Constitution yet.

Porkulus wrote:

The “public option” is Democratspeak for the government getting into the insurance business. It taxes you, it collects a premium, and then it gives you crappy health care -- after a long wait.“Opt out” is something new they thought of over the weekend. It says that the public option would be, well, an option, and that individual states could opt out of it. They could decide, by a vote of their legislature, that they don’t want their residents to be clients of the federal public option.
The opt-out provision lets Democrat senators from moderate or conservative states go home and tell their constituents that they didn’t vote for the public option for their particular state. These senators can pretend to oppose it while simultaneously supporting it.
But like I said, it’s all a con. Nothing more than a shell game intended to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people. If the opt-out option goes forward, it is the same as imposing the public option on the entire country.
There are three reasons why I say that.
The first is that while a state may choose not to benefit by the public option, it may not choose not to pay for the public option. The operating deficits of the public option -- and there will be operating deficits -- will be made up out of the public treasury. Residents of all the states pay income taxes which go into the public treasury. The same is true of all other federal taxes, on individuals, businesses and transactions. It all goes into one pot.
So everybody pays for the public option, even if they or their state choose not to benefit by it.
The second reason is like the first.
The public option is essentially a false insurance plan offered by the federal government. False in that, unlike real insurance, it won’t be a shared-risk pool, it will be an indemnification. It won’t have to balance its books, it won’t have to operate in the black. It will be playing by a different set of rules -- most significantly the rule that it can suck money out of the treasury any time it wants. It will quack like a duck, but bite like a tiger -- especially if you’re a real insurance company.
The public option won’t compete with real insurance companies, it will undercut them. It will “sell” health-care coverage at a loss and destabilize the real insurance companies that try to match its premiums.
And that’s no good. First, because most of us rightly trust our insurance company more than we trust our government. Second, because the insurance-company money lost in the opt-in states will have to be made up in the opt-out states.
So in an opt-out state, not only will you have to pay taxes to support a program you don’t use, you’ll have to pay higher insurance premiums to bolster a company being gutted by the public option.
Thus far, opt-out is a lose-lose -- and we haven’t even gotten to the Constitution yet.

The Federal government has a solid track record as far as allowing "opting out" of the programs it offers. It's like the bully on the playground -- first they take your stuff and then make you do foolish things in order to get it back. Every state's citizens pay taxes to the federal government (they take your stuff) and then the rules kick in to get it back.

Drinking age must be set at 21 years or you don't get federal highway funding.
Your speed limit must be 55 or you don't get federal funding (remember the 70's).
You must install light rail or you don't get federal funding.

So, states, you want to opt out of public health care? No problem. You just won't get any federal funding (that is, returning your own money to you).