cg2112

This is driving me nuts, I can't place the name:

I've been riding to work this week. Cold as hell (that doesn't actually make any sense) in the morning, but perfect coming home. My only problem has been my gloves, leather with mesh on the side of my fingers for breathability. Great for when it's warm, not so much in 35 degrees.

There's actually something to that. Not that the NBA or the NHL are racist exactly, but it really comes down to economics. Blacks are poorer than whites, and live mostly in urban areas. Basketball is cheap and played in the city. Hockey, on the other hand, is expensive and typically played in more rural areas (not to mention places that can afford a rink).

I'm not convinced. Over the couple of years, insurance companies have had membership drop by millions, but had huge increase in profits. They've reduced coverage while raising prices, and as a result have had huge revenue increases (Cigna, more than 300%, Wellpoing, more than 700%) Well, yeah. That's what people need. If you've got unlimited money, you don't have a problem getting the health care you need. If you can pay in cash, you don't get denied treatment for cancer because you forgot to disclose that you had acne 20 years ago.

You think because you know some successful black people that there's a level playing field? What does the fact that you know some black people have to do with anything? Recognizing that whites have an advantage over black by virtue of being white doesn't mean that blacks cannot be successful. The fact of the matter is, only 4% of doctors (and nurses, for that matter) are black, which is odd, given that 13% of the population is black. Maybe most blacks are just too tired after destroying their own neighborhoods to pursue a career in medicine? Also, what medical center are we talking about? Are they hiring in IT? I only ask because if your black nurses are making $80K a year after just a couple of years, despite the fact that RN's with years of experience earn around $75K on the high end, I can't imagine how much they'd overpay an engineer with 15 years of experience!

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read in here. It has nothing to do with faith in blacks. It has everything to do with the advantages that white people have, right now, simply by being white. It's not about blacks being less capable. I certainly don't believe that blacks are less capable. I do believe, however, that whites have more advantage just by being white. Despite your claim that blacks ruin their own neighborhoods, the fact of the matter is that inner cities get less money for education and infrastructure. As a result, many black students are less prepared for college and employment than whites with similar economic conditions. And that doesn't address the fact that white families are far, far more likely to have wealth than black families, again, giving whites advantage when it comes to resources (whites typically have much more wealth than blacks of the same income level - 10 times higher, in fact - maybe because they spend so much on rims?). White families, even in the middle class, have had many generations to build wealth, something blacks have not had, and the gap in wealth is only getting wider. It's quadrupled in the last 30 years. Then there's simply institutional racism that gives whites an advantage. The unemployment rate for blacks is twice as high as it is for whites. I suppose you could argue that in the same way that blacks ruin their own neighborhoods, they don't try to find jobs - but it's also true of black college graduates. The unemployment rate for black college graduates is twice as high as white graduates. And with a job, a black employee typically earns significantly less than whites for the same job - which blacks are much less likely to get if they have a black sounding name on their resume. Capability has nothing to do with it. Blacks are just as capable as whites, but it's foolish to claim that whites don't have an advantage just by being white. I don't necessarily think that blacks need help, which is why I don't support the sort of affirmative action that exists today. I think the system needs help, because the system, right now, treats whites better than it treats blacks. I'm not saying that you should make an extra effort to hire black people. I'm saying that by the time the average black person is interviewing for a job, he should have the same opportunity and advantages as the average white person competing for the same job. Right now, that simply is not the case.

Who said they weren't allowed to be successful? Making excuses? You're theory, that blacks are just lazy, may be easier, but it ignores, well, pretty much everything about our society.

Being the leftwing nut that I am, I'm all for affirmative action. Just different affirmative action. Quotas (which I'm pretty sure are gone now anyway) and hiring initiatives don't work and certainly do nothing to help ease racial tensions. The fact of the matter is, it's still a huge advantage to be white in this country (except for at McDonald's. They don't hire very many white people, and the few that they do have, they force to wear ties all day). You can see this pretty much every day if you work in a corporate office in Cincinnati (which is almost half black now) or in Dayton (which is 40% black). The problem isn't hiring policies or racists in the workplace, the problem is way more institutionalized than that. And I know everyone gets pissed off about government spending, but I really think that the solution is to throw more money at the problem. Improve schools in areas with large black populations, create better adult education programs, etc. And I don't think that it's only the government who should be throwing money at the issue, either. Private corporations should be doing the same thing. Case in point: Anyone ever go into the Roselawn Kroger before they closed it (which is another issue altogether, I won't get into that here)? The place was a shit hole. Broken carts, shitty parking lot, poorly maintained building. Meanwhile, cut over to West Hamilton, and the Kroger is awesome. Great condition, very well maintained, brand new carts rotated in on a regular basis. When the world tells you "this is what you deserve" from birth, just how motivated are you going to be? Will you believe that you're even able to achieve? I agree, affirmative action programs generally don't really do what they're supposed to, and should be ended. But not because we're even close to equal access and equal opportunity. They should be ended and replaced with long term impact, that gives everyone the tools to succeed from the get go.

(November 5th, 1955 is the day that Doc thought up the idea for the flux capacitor, after hitting his head on the toilet - I think it was the toilet)

November 5th is the day that, at least according to the flyer that was on my car, that the Democrats get to vote. I'm going as soon as I get out of work!

That's not really accurate! Democrats pretty much stayed home. Dumbasses.

I'm sure insuring 18-26 year olds, who rarely go to the doctor, and make up the healthiest age group in the United States, are a huge burden for the insurance companies.

That's very unique. It's interesting that the majority of premium increases are coming this year. Did your insurance company tell you that this is because of health care reform? I only ask because very little of the health care bill has been implemented to date, and the changes that the insurance companies say will cause costs to skyrocket (no pre-existing conditions, no annual limits, insurance exchanges, required insurance) will not be implemented until 2014.

Of course health care companies told you this. They oppose the health care bill, because the people who need health care plans the most are the people who can't afford it. They're worried that if sick people seek health care, they may see a decrease in profits. The horror. What the health insurance companies neglect to mention is that they're going to get an increase in customers, to the tune of 30 million people. Many of those 30 million people are actually perfectly health college aged adults who, today, feel invincible and don't bother getting insurance. Not to mention that people are more likely to stay on more expensive plans for longer, since they can continue to insure their college aged kids, meaning even more profit for the health care companies. Insurance companies who like the status quo are certainly going to tell you that premiums are going to increase 60% if the health care bill was passed. They probably didn't say that they'd be likely to go up that high if it DIDN'T pass, I bet. I don't suppose they mentioned to you that over the last 10 years, with no health care reform at all, the insurance companies have raised the cost of premiums over 120%? Probably not. http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14514 The CBO busted the "skyrocketing premiums" myth early on. Premiums would likely stay about the same, increasing slightly for some, decreasing slightly for others, depending on the type of coverage you get and how you get it. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/25/barack-obama/obama-says-under-democratic-health-plan-family-ins/

That part is absolutely a mistruth. I would say the number of companies that stop providing health care and instead just pay the fee is going to be 0, or close to it. As it stands right now (and prior to passing the health care bill), a company is under no obligation whatsoever to provide health care plans. You can stop proving your employees health benefits right now, with no penalty (for the moment). So why are you providing health care right now?

On the deficit: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/9/13/901698/-Treasury:-Deficit-8-LOWER-in-1st-11-Mo.-Fiscal-Yr http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63C09I20100413 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13/budget-deficit-in-u-s-narrows-13-to-90-5-billion-on-rising-tax-receipts.html On taxes (he didn't just not raise taxes, he lowered them): http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html?_r=1&hp http://www.bvonmoney.com/2010/10/26/obama-lowered-your-taxes-did-you-know-that/ That's just a small amount of false information that people believe to be true. Health care is another issue, and a huge one when it comes to misleading the people. Republicans are complaining that if we fine employers a few hundred dollars per employee for not providing health care, they will simply stop proving health benefits, because a few hundred dollars per employee is a whole lot cheaper than a health plan. In fact, Karl Rove a lengthy article about this in the Wall Street Journal. It's such a huge mistruth that it's pretty embarrassing. Even without knowing anything about health care (or if your knowledge of the health care bill is isolated to the paragraph before this one), it only takes a little simply logic to figure out why this simply isn't true.

It all depends on how good they can lie. One of the reasons Republicans did so well yesterday is because they were able to convince voters that President Obama increased both taxes and the deficit, and the President is a Democrat, so we should vote for Republicans - despite the fact that, thus far, President Obama has not raised taxes and has decreased the deficit. But if you say it loud enough and long enough (and maybe stomp on the heads of a few people who try to call you out on it), people will start to believe you.

Given that every third law passed in Arizona is anti-minority or anti-hispanic, this should be completely unsurprising.

I gotta say, I'm really surprised that OR seemed to prefer Kasich, given the number of gun owners around here. I voted for Strickland. Not because I'm a supporter, but because I was pretty disgusted by this election cycle, particularly Kasich's campaign, and I don't completely hate Strickland, so he got my vote.

A criminal infraction is a violation of the law which could result in jail time. A civil infraction (on its own) will never result in jail time. Possession of marijuana (or, legally, "marihuana") is not a crime in Ohio, but it violates civil code, thus results in a $100 fine (for under 100g). In Ohio, you need to be caught with more than seven ounces for jail time to even be considered.

Your first question is odd. No one said that the burst of the housing bubble wasn't partly responsible for the recession. Your second question is largely unanswerable. What would our economy look like without stimulus initiatives? Most believe we'd be worse off, as a matter of fact. But even the brightest economic minds are making educated guesses, what with our inability to travel through time, create an alternate timeline, and make a scientific comparison.

I don't know what "Johnny Big Balls liberal" is supposed to mean. Which book about economics would you like me to read? Where is this 11 year cycle described? Are you talking about the Juglar business cycle? You clearly believe that you have a better understanding of economics than I do. I assume, then, since you've studied the subject with great interest, that you are away that the business cycle is incredibly unreliable, and not natural. That is, the economy does not rise and fall on its own - there are a number of factors that contribute to these cycles. You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of the business cycle. The fact that there is a roughly 11 year cycle does not mean that actions we take today will have an impact a decade down the road. They certainly can, and do, but the mere existence of a business cycle theory does not mean that Republicans are responsible for healthy economies 15 years after they've left the White House. The existence of such theories does not mean that extending loans to lower income earners will eventually result in a housing crash (and, in fact, it didn't - hell, our crappy health care system had more to do with the housing crash than FM/FM did). The business cycle says, essentially, that there is a seven to eleven year period of economic expansion, depression/recession, and recovery. What it does not explain how this happens (the "natural" cycle of the economy is something invented by Republicans to explain away both Clinton's successes and Bush's failures). The "why's" of each business cycle needs to be examined individually, as there are different causes for every component of every cycle, and they're pretty much always different - there's no one thing (or, really, even a set of similar circumstances) which drive these cycles. Business cycles are caused, they do not just happen, and should not be used to explain away good or poor performance by a particular Administration.

"Everyone" didn't make "BHO" - HEY GUYS!! DON'T FORGET THAT HIS MIDDLE NAME IS HUSSEIN!! - out to the "savior" of the country. The Republicans did that. And it was genius, too. In fact, McCain ran campaign ads subtly comparing Obama to Christ (as did a number of other Republican organizations). It was a brilliant campaign, intended to not just help McCain, but to set the groundwork for the 2010 election in the event that Obama won the election. Now the Republicans, having convinced half of American that Obama was supposed to be a messiah, can sit back and say "HEY! We told you so! Put us back in Congress!" Certainly, there are Democrats who made a comparison - Steve Cohen comes to mind, pointing out that both Obama and Christ were community organizers - but you couldn't turn on Fox News without hearing Hannity say something about it, and McCain pushed a huge ad campaign making the comparison. It's pretty much the same thing they did with health care reform - talk about how much it will suck, then refuse to compromise to the point where anything that was good about it has been completely removed, and what finally passes is something no one wants then tell the country "Look! We were right! It sucks! We told you!" It's rather brilliant campaigning if you ask me.

Wow. Clinton wasn't responsible for the economic successes of his administration, but WAS responsible for the economic letdown which occurred during the Bush Administration. Fantastic! The last paragraph doesn't really make sense. President Obama was a member of the Senate before he became President, meaning he voted "yes" on a "solid portion" of what he inherited? That's nonsense. The Republicans held the majority during most of the Bush Presidency. Which means that the Democrats (and then-Senator Obama) would have been more likely voting "no" than voting yes on issues that were supported by the President. The fact of the matter is, during half of President Obama's time as a Senator, the Republicans had the majority in both the House and Senate, and when the Democrats finally had "power", it was a general election year, there was a lame duck President, and we were ALREADY in recession. Never mind the incredibly expensive and needless war that no doubt has contributed to the severity of the current recession. So, just so we're clear here: The economic success during President Clinton's Administration was the result of President Reagan's economic policies. The end of that economic growth during President Bush's tenure was the result of President Clinton's economic policies. The current recession is not the result of President Bush's policies, but rather, is President Obama's fault, since he was a member of the Senate during some of President Bush's time in Office. Am I understanding this correctly?