iwishiwascool

Mine is really reasonable at $330 or so for my my little family. HSA lumenos 3000. 3000 deductible, HSA eligible, Rx and well visits. My employer was charging me $760 for a plan with a 2k deductible. I'm fairly certain they were scamming.

Back when I was a W2 I switched from my employer's plan to an Anthem plan through eHealthinsurance.com. It was far less expensive for nearly the exact same plan. It may be cheaper to ditch the employer plan and just get what you want.

I followed a drunk driver on 270 a few years back who drove into a light post going 90+ killing his passenger... unfortunately not instantly. Fuck drunk drivers.

I have a the new new iPad (not the new new new iPad with the thundercock connector), I'm on the road a lot and it can be a bit too large when I need to update my database in the car or pop into a Panera to make some notes. My iPhone is too small for these kinds of jobs. I'll probably pick up the updated version of the Mini when it rolls around next year.

I don't blame you. My cholesterol numbers have never been better though. I don't care so much about animal's feelings; my decision to do it was strictly health driven. It's been 15 months now and I don't even think about it.

So who do you think is going to win it Tim?

I'm vegan and I think that shit is bonkers.

Dude, that 20% tax break you've been exalting as the next best thing since yourself is literally impossible without http://contributing to the deficit. This is how republicans sell tax cuts: "Oh, the growth will cover the difference!". In his case repealing ALL the tax loopholes we would still need 6% sustained growth to make it deficit neutral. China can't even maintain that manipulating their currency, the government controlling all industry, and with slave labor. At least it's better than Ryans plan which would add even more to the deficit than doing nothing at all for 10 years. I don't know how old you are but doesn't it feel pretty damn similar to the "We'll cut taxes and figure it out later" of the G.W Bush 12 years ago? Tell me more about how Romney is TOTALLY different while he is answering to the same financiers that Bush was.

So does he mean literally when he says Obama believes it's the government's responsibility to create jobs? You can't have it both ways. If so, Obama sure has failed since federal jobs have decreased in the past 4 years. http://zfacts.com/sites/all/files/image/top-10/federal-government-employment.png So much so that economists estimate that the unemployment rate would be 1% lower had it stayed level. The whole notion that the government as an employer is ballooning out of control OMG! is not accurate. Here are total jobs gained vs. lost over the past 8 years. Based on this alone which color would you choose? http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/06/MonthlyJobs.png Penny Penny

Don't forget he's Cut taxes for employees Cut taxes for small businesses Supported LGBT rights (If you're into that) Continued the "war on terror" with drones rather than boots (If you're into that) Reversed Bush's ridiculous ban on stem cell research Eliminated pre-existing condition Insurance denials And he's provided travel expenses to families of fallen soldiers to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB Among some other positive things. I certainly don't agree with everything that has happened over the past four years, but the narriative that some try to report is of a monster they've created in their collective minds.

On top of that his national security foreign policy advisors are the same neo conservatives that led us into Iraq. No thanks.

Every economist outside his white paper authors have concluded that his tax cut/austerity program while increasing military spending will run even greater deficits. His and Ryan's retort is just "Trust us" or "It'll take too long to explain". Bush enacted his tax cuts with the same line of bullshit. Why Tim believes that finally THIS TIME, it's actually going to work is beyond me. Mitt's "Small Business" experience gives him as much credibility in macroeconomics as my ability to balance a check book gives me in running Bain Capital. Being a CEO is far different than being a President.

I think I'm ready to sit back and watch the results, we've beaten our positions into the ground. Everyone knows the flag you're going to wave, and approximately what I am going to retort. Let's see where democracy takes it...

I just got the email for this... really wishing I had gotten a Chase Ink Bold for the 5x. The Sapphire only gets me 1x.

Don't Pin that gold star on yet; I've lived in Alabama for 2 months now, haven't seen an Asian yet. I may have forgotten the characteristics.

Having the ability to recognize your own bias is intellect level Azn.

Is that what you think?

Same specs as a netbook I bought 2 years ago for the same price. Seriously, if you're going to edit your DSLRs photos on it you have to get some decent resolution and ram.

It keeps popping back up. I've seen it 4 times since we got ours. It will be back.

This deal keeps popping up on Woot: http://tech.woot.com/offers/toshiba-17-3-quad-core-laptop-w-blu-ray We got it for Kristin a few months back for a few bucks more. If you're going to do real photoshop editing you really need ram and resolution. Most 15.4 screens are terrible at 720 max vertical.

Anecdotal examples aside, I'm not arguing to lower the bar or give everyone a trophy. Income inequality is the problem, reducing taxes for the top 1% is not the answer. There is higher probability of a stimulus, yes spending, to embolden the middle class and increase demand. The jobs bill was a nice example of something that could have been done to stoke demand, Republicans could have suggested how they would have changed it rather than kill it in cloture. Their only counter was to introduce HR 2911 which did nothing but repeal corporate income taxes. Please. The reality is that Republicans wanted the economy to stall until next month to clear a path for a republican president. If you really think Mitt is going to get in there and start focusing on revitalizing the middle class then you are as naive as the tea party voters that voted in legislators who promised to create economic change only to spend all their time on social issues. If he were to win he would have many debts to repay, none of those are in the interests of those are in the interests of the little guy. The elected legislators of the Republican party have crushed the middle class, and don't give me that lack of leadership bullshit. It takes two sides to negotiate. As for your last "disagree" you can do so all you want, but the number are not on your side. Corporate liquid holdings have increased 59% since 2008 to the tune of 2.2 trillion dollars. The money is not moving as a result of the lack of demand. Not regulations, not uncertainty... just simple lack of demand.

I'm going to try to break it down, tell me if I'm wrong. I believe that our economic success as a country relies on demand, that a company given tax breaks and incentives only makes a more profitable widget, not more widgets. I believe that the economic engine of our country resides in the middle where a majority of income earners reside. I believe that strengthening the middle class drives economic growth and thus the success of the upper class. I believe that my business will be more successful if there is increased demand. You believe in supply side theory. Decreasing burdens on the upper income earners incentivize them to make investments hire employees and "give back" to the middle class in the form of participation in the market. Again, tell me if I'm wrong. Reducing these burdens raises all ships because, you believe, wealth is not finite. Jobs are created, middle earners have more money to spend and demand increases. So really we have a chicken and egg paradox. To improve the economy to you stimulate demand or incentivize the top? This is the quandary that has haunted economists for centuries. And I think this is the foundation of our disagreement. So let's look at the constants before we get to the variables. Most people really believe they are going to be rich. Most people here probably believe it too. Some may even vote based on their perceived future self vs. where they are now. However, there is a normal distribution of the typical factors associated with wealth (i.e. motivation, delayed gratification, etc). This normal distribution curve looks something like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Standard_deviation_diagram.svg/325px-Standard_deviation_diagram.svg.png Your argument that people can just "choose" to be wealthy is a misnomer akin to me choosing to have blue eyes. We are living in a time of the least economic mobility, ever. Those who have a combination of skill, connections and luck find themselves on the right side of the scale have a higher probability of becoming wealthy. The probability of mobility for those on the other side of the curve is far lower: http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2011/11/~/media/Research/Images/F/FF%20FJ/figure2.jpg Further, on a macro economic scale there is very little correlation between effort and reward. How much your father made is much more determinate in your lifetime earnings than your work ethic. Your retort has been "Well I did it" in the past. Great, you are exceptional, literally. Though I would hold doubt the statistical divergence is as great as a disparity as it feels to you. Wealth inequality is not inherently bad. It is necessary for a functioning free society. The problem is when it becomes so dramatic that wealth concentration allows segments of activity to control regulators, regulations and legislation. We have reached that precipice: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/09/19/opinion/19krugman2.533.jpg Income inequality has not been this extreme since 1929, remember what happened then? A stable, energized economy requires a healthy middle class. As a business owner, no amount of tax breaks or incentives are going to compel me to hire more people and manufacture more widgets if there isn't demand to buy them. I simply make more profit on the widgets I am selling and further exacerbate the income inequality gap. This is exactly what has happened over the last 20 years. That nostalgic time Glen Beck hearkens back to, that's when the tax code was the most progressive and the middle class was the strongest. I argue that sniffing the thrones of the top 1% is not only wrong but destructive to the foundation of the country. I would argue that creating a regressive tax system would do even more harm to the middle class gulf. If a solution isn't found to increase the vitality of the middle, this ship will crack and be sunk by each end. That is what the barstool allegory fails to recognize. This is an incredibly complex issue with a multitude of very important variables that fall well outside this simplification. The worlds problems are not simple issues. Simplifications like these are based on qualitative or quantitative misunderstandings of global concepts or macro economics. Typically people want to be affirmed and not informed, affirmation is most easily found in simple explanations. Simplicity is most often confused with clarity.

I had a post that evaluated where Tim and I stood, layed out demand vs. supply, discussed income inequality in the construct of our blooming plutocracy and reinforced this argument with charts and graphs. One little touch a random button on my drawing pad killed it. Maybe later. I have jobs to create.

I agree, I've been working toward it for years. I was just pointing out the silliness of your statement:

So do you believe that the person you described represents the majority of lower income people? That is the narrative that the right wants you to believe. There millions more hard working lower income people that dream of not having to worry about making rent each month let alone the conspicuous consumption luxuries you describe than the welfare queen red herring above. Consumption taxes are inherently regressive. The Fair Tax is a national sales tax. The fair tax is regressive. If you believe in extreme supply side economics it might be the plan for you. I really don't have the motivation to argue against a regressive tax system... I'll leave you to what others say, positive and negative.