Topix Chitown Regulars

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#92292 Oct 4, 2013
RACE wrote:
Sad? I'll tell you whats sad.
Sad is a bunch of people on the internet sniping at each other and acting like total losers arguing over something they cannot and will not put forth the energy to change.
Sad is that you've been posting on here for years and haven't learned how to skip over posts. Sorry, but a few of you who think this is all about you, don't get to act as moderators and pick the topics. You think you do, but my middle finger says otherwise.

Since: Jun 09

Saint Petersburg, FL

#92293 Oct 4, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>Excuse me, but that is a cool dog...is it a mix or specific breed?
Thanks! SHe's a mix. I think she might be a border collie mix or a bernese mountain dog mix or something. I lean towards bernese. Her coat has the texturing and layers of a mountain dog (and it repels water) and she doesn't herd. She plays sometimes, but she's mostly a pretty serious dog.

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#92294 Oct 4, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Obamacare drastically increase the total amount spent. The CBO estimates it will cost the federal government will pay out 1.7 Trillion from 2014-2023, to cover 27 million people. That works out to a cost of $6,300 for each of those 27 million people, per year!!!
Instead of lowering cost and improving care, they made cost go through the roof to improve care, and guess who gets stuck paying that $6,300 our children and grandchildren (in the form of debt we will take on) and those of us who are already insured and who pay taxes. Not only did taxes go up for us, but our medical care is going up, just so 27 million bottom feeders can get more free shyte that they don't pay for and couldn't care less how it affects others to provide them. They want healthcare and they want others to pay for it. They can go f' off.
I'm not getting into depth on this b/c frankly I don't have the time. Also, anyone who thinks 27 million people are bottom feeders tells me exactly what type of person they are.

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#92295 Oct 4, 2013
On to other subjects. Carolyn Hax letter.

Hi, Carolyn:
I’m in a new relationship (two months in) and the guy I’m seeing let me know that his ex is four months pregnant and there’s a good chance he is the father. The baby is due this winter.
Any normal person would run in the other direction. I, on the other hand, truly care about him and a part of me wants to stick around, since I know we will have a bright future together. The other part of me thinks about all of the repercussions, from this child possibly coming to search for him one day, to the ex changing her mind and wanting him back, to her wanting him to pay child support, etc.
The ex-girlfriend allegedly wants nothing to do with my boyfriend, and she is fine with his signing over his rights. I’m just pretty torn about whether I should stick around since I do see a future, or should get out now to escape what’s to come once this baby arrives.

"Lilly"

I'm amazed this person would have any respect of a man who does not want anything to do with his child.

Since: Jun 09

Saint Petersburg, FL

#92296 Oct 4, 2013
Mister Tonka wrote:
Did you see the new toy this year, Uggly's Pugs??? My daughter is dying to get one. I made the mistake of telling her that a coworker ordered one for herself (I work with very seriosu adults, obviously). It belches and farts and makes 30 disgusting sounds. It's on Toys R Us.
dahgts

Florence, AL

#92297 Oct 4, 2013
Timmy wrote:
Do you have a brain tumor? Were you dropped on your head as a child? Please explain you complete inability to accept the fact that the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act were enacted by the Democratic Johnson administration.
<quoted text>
hate in his heart and jello in his skull.

the economy downturn was destined the minute Nixon went to China, and continued when Reagon initiated bank deregulation. and yes, Dem presidents continued to be a part of this.When there was all the manufacturing here the entitlement spending was not a big issue because there were jobs.

the two party system here now is corporations and financial institutions.
someone tell me how much GWB improved jobs and helped the economy within those 8 years.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#92298 Oct 4, 2013
Toj wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not getting into depth on this b/c frankly I don't have the time. Also, anyone who thinks 27 million people are bottom feeders tells me exactly what type of person they are.
Any one who realizes the rate at which entitlements have grown in consumption of our federal budget from 20% in 1970 to over 46% in 2010 and despite this thinks we aren't doing enough for poor innocent victims of society and thinks we need yet another entitlement program, such as Obamacare, that pushes it over 50%, tells me exactly the type of person they are, a complete f'ing moron.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#92299 Oct 4, 2013
dahgts wrote:
<quoted text>the two party system here now is corporations and financial institutions.
someone tell me how much GWB improved jobs and helped the economy within those 8 years.
It's always been about business ... see the annexation of Hawaii ... see the Spanish American War. Always. What's changed is that entitlement growth is completely unchecked. Entitlements and safety net have a role in society, but in the way democrats envision them they are not even close to being sustainable.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#92301 Oct 4, 2013
Neither apparently have you, so here's my middle finger to you! Take your own advice dude. And thanks for keeping it brief.
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sad is that you've been posting on here for years and haven't learned how to skip over posts. Sorry, but a few of you who think this is all about you, don't get to act as moderators and pick the topics. You think you do, but my middle finger says otherwise.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#92303 Oct 4, 2013
RACE wrote:
Neither apparently have you, so here's my middle finger to you! Take your own advice dude. And thanks for keeping it brief.
<quoted text>
I've never once told anyone they need to change the topic of conversation, because I don't care for it. I would never even think to do that or think that others must obey me and limit their discussions to topics I find tasteful and enjoy.

So, contrary to what you say, I do take my advice.

Nothing personal, Race. I'm just being honest. Doesn't mean I don't like ya.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#92304 Oct 4, 2013
A noted observer wrote:
90% of Americans favor stronger background checks on guns so, there couldn't be a possible GOP objection to tacking that on to a continuing resolution. John Boner could negotiate about that but, by "negotiate" I clearly mean "suck on it" because, evidently, that's how politics works,
I don't have a problem with background checks for guns, but unfortunately because of the way the Constitution is written, I think it needs to happen at the state level.

As the second amendment, which limits the power of the federal government, quite clearly states:

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed [by the federal government]."

That is pretty unambiguous language.

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#92305 Oct 4, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Obamacare drastically increase the total amount spent. The CBO estimates it will cost the federal government will pay out 1.7 Trillion from 2014-2023, to cover 27 million people. That works out to a cost of $6,300 for each of those 27 million people, per year!!!
Instead of lowering cost and improving care, they made cost go through the roof to improve care, and guess who gets stuck paying that $6,300 our children and grandchildren (in the form of debt we will take on) and those of us who are already insured and who pay taxes. Not only did taxes go up for us, but our medical care is going up, just so 27 million bottom feeders can get more free shyte that they don't pay for and couldn't care less how it affects others to provide them. They want healthcare and they want others to pay for it. They can go f' off.
Some portion of that money goes to subsidize teh insurance premiums of low income people. Not all low income people stay that way. the number flucuates. For example, my grad student daughter who worked last year but is scarbbling to find part time jobs this year will qualify for teh premium subsidy. Eventually she will make enough money not to be a drain but to pay back into teh sytem. This will also hold true of her friends who are young, healthy and at the beginning of there wage arning careers.

The bottom feeders consume health care. In my experience the lowest paid people consume the most health care. If they are uninsured the health sytem renders teh care as a charity expense for which they must raise charges for teh rest of us. Do you want to go into a hospital which has the insured wing and the paupers ward? Didn't think so. The cost has to be capitalized. If there is someone to pay, teh care can be controlled and spread more equitably so teh government pays less overall.. Think of it as water seeking its own level.

The concept of insurance in the abstract requires collecting premiums from people who don't make claims which will balance the payouts for people with high costs whose premiums paid were less than the cost of their care.(Insurance companies are very highly regulated. Their loss ratios are published quarterly and the premiums they can charge are adjusted up or down. Insurance companies are the one industry that weathered the 2008 crash well. The part of AIG which had the problems was not its insurance companies) Premiums for people with good histories are less but are still present. If you compel people with a low loss experience into the pool, they will pay lower premiums from a larger number of people which will allow the carriers to fund care across the board. No too many people are still griping about mandatory auto insurance any more although they howled when the requirement was first being passed.

There is also the social concept that the less fortunate should be cared for by those with more. Will there be abuses, bottom dwellers, frauds? Of course. I am galled by that and I actively work against such people. But , and it is a big but, I am willing to tolerate that gall for the sake of the benefit that more people have access to reasonable health care because I see that as something basic and humane. Therefore the cost you cite is fluid, may go up or down but is one I am willing to stomach.

The health care available to the ACA people in the lower tiers of the policies will not be the same as you get. There will be many more paraprofessionals, more clinics rather than one on one docs. That will weed out the Gomers and identify those who need care.

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#92306 Oct 4, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have a problem with background checks for guns, but unfortunately because of the way the Constitution is written, I think it needs to happen at the state level.
As the second amendment, which limits the power of the federal government, quite clearly states:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed [by the federal government]."
That is pretty unambiguous language.
What about the first part of the sentence? The part that talks about maintaining a well regulated militia?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How about anybody who gets a gun license automatically is signed up for 2 years of military reserve service? Among other things we would be assured that a gun owner was rigorously trained in gun usage, that gang bangers would know how to shoot only the guys they want and avoid collateral damage to babies in strollers.

Israel has mandatory service

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#92307 Oct 4, 2013
A noted observer wrote:
<quoted text>How about corporate handouts? I've been in Exxon stations where they are getting around $4 for every gallon of product they sell yet they get hundreds of millions in subsidies from the giverment! They are buying filet mignon and caviar AND politicians with corporate welfare! If you can't make it on billions in profits without giverment handouts, maybe Exxon ought to get a job at McDonalds!
Is the federal government actually giving it money or is it allowing it to keep more of its own money? I think it’s the latter. Letting someone keep more of what they have earned is rather different than giving folks things for free. You realize this, no?

Having said that I despise the tax breaks for big oil. It does nothing for anyone, except those corporations.

Oil is a global commodity … just because it is pumped out of the ground here or refined into gas here, doesn’t mean it stays here … it follows the $$. The only reason you would want to encourage national production is if you thought an OPEC type embargo would be possible, in which case under such circumstances you could in theory enact legislation requiring all oil produced here to stay here, to prevent shortages.

OPEC is not nearly the force they were in the 70s … and politically/economically, the world is quite different today than it was in the 1970s. I don’t see it happening.

It is poor policy and is one of the things I disagree with the republicans about, along with their general disdain for the environment. I’m not a republican. I’m also not a democrat.

Having said that if you think cutting back on big oil tax breaks, even in combination with higher taxes on the 1%(both of which I support) will put our country on a sustainable course, absent additional cuts to spending, including entitlements, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you. It’s not possible. There are not enough 1%ers and there are not enough tax breaks to make it so.

At some point, entitlement spending will need to be reformed along with these things. I know it breaks your liberal heart, but it’s just reality. What republicans and democrats need to do is sit down and strike a “grand bargain” and if we want to do it right, bother are going to have to give more than they want to.

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#92309 Oct 4, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have a problem with background checks for guns, but unfortunately because of the way the Constitution is written, I think it needs to happen at the state level.
As the second amendment, which limits the power of the federal government, quite clearly states:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed [by the federal government]."
That is pretty unambiguous language.
I am not re-arguing any gun control cases but the 2nd Amendment does not include reference to the Federal government. It stops at "infringed". That supports eh argument that eh Federal government cannot limit the right to keep and bear arms. It does not specify whether anyone else can. I am aware that Chicago fought and lost that battle. Just keeping you honest

“It made sense at the time....”

Since: May 09

Itasca, IL

#92310 Oct 4, 2013
OK, I *do* know how to skip posts, and i must say taht i'm getting tired of scrollign past better than 75% of them, lately.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#92311 Oct 4, 2013
PEllen wrote:
<quoted text>
Some portion of that money goes to subsidize teh insurance premiums of low income people. Not all low income people stay that way. the number flucuates. For example, my grad student daughter who worked last year but is scarbbling to find part time jobs this year will qualify for teh premium subsidy. Eventually she will make enough money not to be a drain but to pay back into teh sytem. This will also hold true of her friends who are young, healthy and at the beginning of there wage arning careers.
You really aren’t subsidizing their care for them. We are subsidizing their care so they can subsidize the care of older folks. A big part of Obamacare is to get younger healthier folks into the insurance game so that they can help offset the costs of older folks and folks. Older folks on average require much more care than they pay in, whereas younger folks pay in much more than the care they receive. Heck, when I was in my 20s, I might have only gone to the doctor once every few years.

So, we aren’t really subsidizing your daughters care … we are subsidizing older folks, who likely won’t ever pay back into the system.
PEllen wrote:
<quoted text>
The bottom feeders consume health care. In my experience the lowest paid people consume the most health care. If they are uninsured the health sytem renders teh care as a charity expense for which they must raise charges for teh rest of us. Do you want to go into a hospital which has the insured wing and the paupers ward? Didn't think so. The cost has to be capitalized. If there is someone to pay, teh care can be controlled and spread more equitably so teh government pays less overall.. Think of it as water seeking its own level.
That’s how hosipitals are already run, i.e. with an insured wing and a puapers ward. I know. They send uninsured and medicare folks home way faster than insured folks. I don’t really have a problem with that. I don’t have a problem with folks who don’t contribute to the system and only drain it, receiving somewhat less care. I think they deserve care, but I have no problem with less care.

Also the government is going pay less overall. It’s going to spend about 6300 for each of the 27 million folks who will now have coverage because of the law. That’s an outrageous sum of money. How many households in this country do you think even pay $6300 or more each year in federal income tax?
PEllen wrote:
<quoted text>
The concept of insurance in the abstract requires collecting premiums from people who don't make claims which will balance the payouts for people with high costs whose premiums paid were less than the cost of their care.(Insurance companies are very highly regulated. Their loss ratios are published quarterly and the premiums they can charge are adjusted up or down. Insurance companies are the one industry that weathered the 2008 crash well. The part of AIG which had the problems was not its insurance companies) Premiums for people with good histories are less but are still present. If you compel people with a low loss experience into the pool, they will pay lower premiums from a larger number of people which will allow the carriers to fund care across the board. No too many people are still griping about mandatory auto insurance any more although they howled when the requirement was first being passed.
The problem I have is not so much with the mandate, but the subsidies.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#92312 Oct 4, 2013
I never said change the topic, or conform to my will. I am just saying the topic is played out, dead horse etc. etc. And as for you taking your own advice, I was referring to the skipping of posts you dont care for. You did not like what I said, and rather than simply ignore it and move on, you decided to tell me to do the very thing you did not do. That's called hypocrisy.

Nothing but love bro!
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never once told anyone they need to change the topic of conversation, because I don't care for it. I would never even think to do that or think that others must obey me and limit their discussions to topics I find tasteful and enjoy.
So, contrary to what you say, I do take my advice.
Nothing personal, Race. I'm just being honest. Doesn't mean I don't like ya.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#92314 Oct 4, 2013
PEllen wrote:
<quoted text>
There is also the social concept that the less fortunate should be cared for by those with more. Will there be abuses, bottom dwellers, frauds? Of course. I am galled by that and I actively work against such people. But , and it is a big but, I am willing to tolerate that gall for the sake of the benefit that more people have access to reasonable health care because I see that as something basic and humane. Therefore the cost you cite is fluid, may go up or down but is one I am willing to stomach.
The current system already cares for those who are less fortunate. Is it lesser care;yes, but even under Obamacare they will have lesser care.

I don't see lesser care as a sin. If you want the best care you need to earn it and pay for it. Nothing but a basic safety net should be free in life. A basic safety net should not, by definition, be all that wonderful. If you want more than that, than you need to put in the effort to make that happen.

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#92315 Oct 4, 2013
Aisle Sitter wrote:
OK, I *do* know how to skip posts, and i must say taht i'm getting tired of scrollign past better than 75% of them, lately.
I'm with ya -- heh, and I've been a contributor. While I think it's an important subject, it seems we can't escape it for a minute.

Let's start with WEEKEND PLANS people. Red isn't around to prompt that.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min Gunner 1,394,429
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 20 min Dr Guru 216,450
AG Lynch proves to be a deceptive liar. 22 min They cannot kill ... 2
last post wins! (Dec '10) 49 min They cannot kill ... 2,126
the larry meber political forum (Jun '11) 54 min A Noted Observer 48
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr TRD 70,698
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr IB DaMann 60,011
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages