User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.7534 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
--the holiday is over
--the general public will return to paying attention to the news
--the various interest groups are revving up their folks/messages
--this context will not be in place again
--the focus now becomes completely about spending
--there is a hard core group willing to let the nation default to get their way
house members will be under 1000000 times more pressure than what was in place over the holiday
because this deal has no commitment on spending which is how the senator of kentucky is selling this.
basically, all taxes are now off the table in the eyes of the gop leadership
forever
Offering health insurance is nothing like serving ham, and I think you know it. Health insurance plans, by law, have to meet certain minimum standards.
But if there were a general expectation that employers had to provide their employees lunch, and there were federal regulations on what foods had to be offered, I don't think a Jain employer ought to be able to claim a religious objection to a regulation that required that employees be served meat as part of their lunch (as long as the regulation doesn't require the meat to be consumed).
Repeating your factual and conceptual errors won't make them any more true. "Employee benefits" are, in purely economic terms, money. They're structured differently because of government intervention via the tax code and social policy, but at the end of the day they're money. The employer isn't "offering a policy with specified coverage", it's paying a minimum wage-equivalent, which the employee and the insurer then use to define the coverage available for that amount.
It mystifies me that libertarians choose to ignore the basic economic structure of the transaction and want the government to intervene in the insurer-employee market transaction on behalf of an employer who has no interest in the economics and who is trying to use the government to enforce a religious belief on the insurer and the employee.
Well, it would mystify me if I weren't familiar with the way libertarians responded to Jim Crow.
I don't think that McConnell would allow a vote on a bill if it wasn't (in his judgment) going to eventually be in compliance with the Hastert rule. Now, the absolute majority rule that Boehner has been working with is not going to work, quite obviously. But more than 130 R House members will vote for the bill.
Well, except that the next "cliff" will basically be just the DoD sequester, and if Ds are willing to let that happen, then Rs are going to have to trade something to stop it. So maybe they trade the debt ceiling instead of trading more revenue, but that won't exactly make the Teapers happy either.
again, senator mcconnell led the fight to get mccain/feingold overturned.
the gop money has long memory. any primary challenge would be buried in cash.
the president is not going to get the gop to lower the floor on income tax a second time.
his 250k and above is never going to happen while he is president.
nor will the cap gains change again
i thought those were two key points for the president
he swapped them for what?
that's a serious question for the group here.
If the deal gets scuttled in the House, it reinforces the perception of the party as a ####-show that isn't capable of governing. The whole thing where Boehner said that it had to be negotiated in the Senate was a fiction. It's a fig leaf that allowed a deal to be worked out. Now Boehner can bring it up in the House allowing an up and down vote.
Third, the RFRA actually does give people the right to opt out of laws because of freedom of religion. Not all laws in all circumstances, to be sure -- but it requires that (a) the government have a compelling state interest in the act that infringes on someone's religious beliefs, and (b) that it uses the least restrictive/least burdensome means to do so. Since the government could simply provide contraception directly, there's no way this employer mandate satisfies the RFRA.
Did Obama ever say he wanted more than the 5% bump on capital gains and dividends? I mean, I'd want them to be treated like regular income, but Ronald Reagan isn't walking through that door.
Looking Presidential?
are you presuming that in 60 days there won't be a go to the mattresses throw down over spending?
If the question is ONLY the DoD sequester, the DoD sequester will fold like paper. The DoD lobby owns as many Dems as they do Goopers.
he doesn't need to worry about that presidential cr8p. he won a second term and had public opinion heavily on his side.
And if the government were to do so, the same people would sue on the same grounds. Since, after all, the government would necessarily be using taxes collected from those individuals to provide contraception directly.
Well, yeah. I was asking that question mark to carry a lot of water there. Not surprised that the incredulity I intended didn't come across.
Compared to what the law would have been had nothing been done, Obama gave up the following:
1. The increased taxes on those earning between 250-450.
2. The increased estate taxes above 3.5 million and 45 (?)%.
3. The increased taxes on cap gains and dividends above 20%.
In return he got the following:
1. A one year extension of the UI.
2. A five year extension of the EITC.
3. A two month delay on the sequester.
That's all I can remember OTTOMH.
Right...arguing that he lost because he didn't get a 10 or 20% bump on cap gains is just moving the goalposts.
If this had been a hostage situation involving ordinary criminals, do you think that the police would have just said, \"#### it; we're bored. Let's storm the place to see what happens"?
Societal and political consensus can dictate what values are acceptable as a matter of public policy. And that can change over time. Nothing is immutable. For instance, there's a push now to outlaw circumcision in a way there never was by the greater overarching society before. That some may see circumcision as their moral right and duty is one thing; it's legal expression is another. See snake handlers, too. Or child brides. Or polygamy. Or having to be medically vetted before you get a marriage license. Or tons of stuff. We can tell businesses, including insurance companies, that if they want to do business, then they have to do X. If they don't like it, they can choose to do something else with their time and efforts.
If this had been regular police attempting to execute a search warrant, and four of them got killed in the process, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have waited another 50 days to storm the place.
Employers dictate to insurance companies what kind of coverage is offered employees. Most employers are "self-insured", and use insurance companies to administer their policies.
I worked for BC/BS. One of my co-workers was fond of telling subscribers that "no one is saying you can't have (procedure x). We're just saying that the contract doesn't allow for payment for it." He would say it with a smile. He liked his job. I hated it.
The part about management "interfering with the right of the insurance company" is beyond delusional. It doesn't even make sense. An insurance company has no right to force any particular plan on an employer. Its right is to decline to do business with the employer if it doesn't like the terms.
Yes, but even BC/BS must do certain things and can't do other things as a matter of public policy that is expressed in law--whether they like it or not. It is never just between two parties, much less one party imposing what amounts to contractual terms of adhesion. The very nature of the idea of contracts contemplates that there is a context in which ultimately a third party will decide disputes between the parties, both as to specific contracts and as to the very nature of the contractual relations.
As a practical matter, isn't it more often the other way around? That is, the insurance company decides what particular plans it will offer and the employer chooses one of the offered plans or declines to do business with that insurer.
i am not speaking in terms of won/loss.
i am asking about things that i thought were considered important and what was gained in return.
and in the next discussion the discussion will be only about spending cuts
i don't know if that is the discussion the president wants to have when all tax increases will be off the table.
because i am not seeing it.
Because when a crazy person who thinks he's a god on earth is ####### multiple 13- and 14-year olds what you want the state to do is just wait it out. After all, if it bleeds, it breeds, amirite David?!
I mean, I know that the GOP has been saying this, but Obama thinks that he can get more revenue through reform. He has stated that any future deals will have to have an equal amount of revenue and cuts. O thinks he can get more revenue by doing a two-step. You might disagree, but that's what he thinks.
I don't see how the GOP has leverage either. If they want to force a budget shutdown, O can probably let them do so.
ok.
He could pick a different starting point, in which case he would incur bigger risks but potentially have more leverage.
I can't imagine him letting himself get stuck on an island, the current situation would predict he will send Biden to negotiate something plausible with McConnell and then dare the House not to pass it. That would put the pressure on the House to do something, but I don't see why McConnell would go out of his way to help the president until it was last-minute time.
What Obama has in his favor in the debt limit, is that the House may not be able to pass anything at all, so they may not be able to put any bill together that would put pressure on the Senate to pass or the President to sign.
Well, the other issue is that sequestration was only delayed 2 months. If you believe that as many democrats as republicans are in the DoD's pocket, then the democrats really are in a poor position as regards those automatic spending cuts.
Given the middle class tax hikes are now off the table, how many people who vote are really going to be all that outraged when the interests of the poorest and most vulnerable Americans aren't protected? (Or, at least, I imagine that's how someone on the left will put it.)
•For couples earning more than $450,000 (or individuals earning more than $400,000), Bush-era tax cuts will expire, and the top income tax rate will rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent
•For couples earning less than $250,000 (or individuals earning less than $200,000), Bush-era tax cuts will be made permanent
•For households earning between those two figures, some exemptions and deductions will expire
•Investment taxes and estate taxes will rise, though with big exemptions
•Stimulus tax credits for college tuition and the working poor will be extended for five years
•Benefits for the long-term unemployed will be extended for one year
•The alternative minimum tax will not go into effect for some 30 million taxpayers, but the payroll tax cut will expire, hitting most taxpayers
•Some stimulus tax credits for businesses, including in the renewable energy sector, will be extended for one year
That quote -- which is not even specifically about contraception -- is ripped badly out of context; it is not saying that therefore it is perfectly legitimate for people to hand out birth control to people.I'm not sure what meaningful distinction you think you're drawing here. (It's certainly not a legally relevant one.)First, "paying" isn't even relevant; if some misguided humanitarian donated boxes of birth control to the Church, that would not make it acceptable for the Church to hand it out to people. Second, I recognize that liberals believe that insurers have printing presses in their basements. (They keep them in the room with the golden egg laying goose and magical chocolate river.) But in fact "insurers" don't pay for anything; insurers' customers do. If you tell an insurance company, "You must hand out $50 bills to all of your customers," that money does not come from the insurer; the insurer raises premiums by $50 to pay it.
The fact that I know more about Catholic teaching than you doesn't make me Pope, Davey. It just means you don't know what you're talking about. Again.
And Happy New Year to you.
Wow. This may be the stupidest thing you've written in years. Congrats!
Taking the "all politics is local" dictum to it's most extreme, this makes me happy and that's all that matters.
Belief in evolution does not imply belief that everything which evolves is good.
ACA mandates coverage of contraceptives but not abortion. I don't mean that flippantly. I'm just stating that in case you didn't know.
And if someone who can't afford birth control gets knocked up and has her child become a ward of the state, you're going to be paying a lot more than you would have if you'd just said "yes" to her request in the first place.
It's worse than that. David's argument is that people who attempt to create some sort of order (via governments) in a disordered world are like people who believe the world was designed by an external force (ID.) It is literally stupid. There is no sense whatsoever in that comparison. It's just David being David.
Both of these are wrong. There are laws (state and federal) which mandate what must be covered by insurance. Both the insurance company and the employer can decide whatever they want, but they are overruled by the law of the land. The various lawsuits are trying to force insurers or employers (or employees for that matter) they are going against the law regarding insurance and what must be covered.
Oh and by the way in no way are most employers self insured. Most for profit companies with more than a thousand employees are self insured (cities and large school districts tend to prefer being fully insured and not self insured). There are many more companies with full insurance than self insurance. Of course the math changes if we are talking employees - I am not sure if there are more employees that exist under a self or fully insured plan, but for them it generally does not matter. In any event self insured companies still have to follow the laws regarding insurance and what is covered.
And repeating this won't make it any more relevant. It's like saying that if I swipe your puppy and replace it with a kitten when you're not around, it's okay because in purely biological terms they're both animals. If an employer wants to give out Kindles to its employees, they don't have the right to receive an iPad instead because both are tablets, nor do they have the right to receive the price of a Kindle instead on the grounds that "in purely economic terms" both are money.
The employer is offering a policy with specified coverage. Your statement is just factually incorrect. Now, many employers might be entirely indifferent as to what's covered, and are only interested in the total cost, but not all are, and the existence of the first group cannot will the second out of existence.
Are you on drugs? Libertarians are asking the government to stay out and not intervene at all, leaving private parties to negotiate whatever they want amongst themselves.
There is no "insurer-employee market transaction." None. The employer is buying the coverage. You can tell, because the employer is the one writing the check to the insurance company. The employee doesn't even have a say in the matter, except whether to accept what the employer is offering. If the employee wants to go out on the individual market and buy a policy, the employer isn't stopping him.
I am not sure what to think about the deal. Mostly I am waiting until it is actually a law and to see what exactly is in it. Knee jerk reactions to stuff before all the smoke clears tend not to be very correct or complete. Plus Obama - for all the crap he gets from his side - has shown himself to be pretty good at getting what he wants in these deals. I would rather he was more progressive and less centrist, but in terms of getting results he does a good job and I trust him to at least be true to his ideals.
I have to agree that this is silly. Social organization is, by definition, designed by human beings. Not only that, but the evolution of society is Lamarckian, not Darwinian.
So I guess they are doing a good job of demonstrating that more of government should be privatized, so we can get the price increases we deserve. :)
Well that horse left the barn many years ago and for every industrialized nation on earth, but if we are going to discuss the coverage mandates contained in ACA that some Catholics are upset about then your statement is not relevant. The various suits are not suggesting the government shouldn't or can't intrude in general, but rather there is a compelling religious "need" (or whatever term) such that the law should not apply.
It is not my call, it is the courts/governments. And I never have tried to dictate my beliefs. And while I don't "give a crap about their beliefs" that is irrelevant, since I have not tried to dictate my beliefs. I have suggested that they don't have a compelling religious reason to be able to dodge the law of the land, because that is what I believe. The courts get to decide though.
Sure, within the various laws (mostly by state) there are many various plans that get offered to employers, and often employers will present multiples of them (and even multiples from multiple insurers). But all of them have to follow the coverage mandates.
and law suits are a semi-permanent part of the landscape for insurance companies, fortunately I never have had to deal with that side of things.
Says the man who argues that taxes are theft (at gunpoint!) of his freedom. Dear god.
It is an expression of religious belief, not an actual policy position. I suspect there would be lawsuits asking for religious exceptions to taxation if they thought they could get away with it.
For the last time: your position here is incoherent and simply ignores basic economics. The employer is NOT "buying coverage". The employer is obligated by law to provide compensation at a minimum level to its employees. Some of that compensation must come in the form of wages. Some must come in the form of an insurance policy. But at the economic base, it's all just money.
That money does not belong to the employer. We all know this is true because libertarians are the first to insist that employee benefits must be counted for the employees.
What's happening is that the employers here don't want to pay the minimum wage. They want to pay less than other employers (assuming that contraception coverage increases the cost of insurance*). It's no different than violating the minimum wage law on the ground that they don't like the way employees spend their wages.
Because employee benefits = money, and because the only interest the employer has in the transaction is the cost, the employer has no interest in the terms of the policy. The coverage conditions are up to the insurer and the beneficiary (namely the employee). You're claiming that someone who is neither the insurer nor the beneficiary can insist on controlling the policy terms. That's absurd.
*If contraception coverage actually reduces the cost of the policy, then the employer is, by definition, not "buying" anything.
This. The Dixiecrat/Teaper base operates on articles of faith, both religiously and ideologically.
Moreover, I'm not a Catholic theologian, but my understanding is that doctrine draws a distinction between these -- just as it draws a distinction between directly providing contraceptive coverage and providing cash to the employee which the employee may choose to spend on contraception.
There are religious exceptions to taxation.
Oh, I know they can't prevail. But they certainly would try.
Between which?
Yeah, I figured I screwed up the analogy. In any case, it's not a sin to provide contraception. Not to sell it to others, and not to provide it in a health care plan. There is no Catholic teaching to that effect.
"This isn't a done deal by any stretch," said Rep. Steve LaTourette (R., Ohio), a retiring member considered a centrist. "If this is the only choice I will vote for it just to get something done." But he questioned the wisdom of accepting, without change, "a package put together by a bunch of sleep-deprived octogenerians on New Year's Eve."
Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R., S.C.) said, "I don't think I could support it as it is. The spending part is killing me. All we see is tax increases."
Rep. Tom Cole (R., Okla.) said the House should pass the bill and put off the fight over spending until the coming months, when Congress will be debating an increase in the debt limit and other spending measures. "It's much better to make this deal now," he said
That sets the bar pretty high for best political quote of the year, especially for something said on January 1st.
Aloha from Hawaii.. its probably a bit of both
This is driving me crazy. Congress literally had two years to figure this out, and now they're claiming that they really only had a midnight deadline.
But here's a hint: the ATF was not there investigating child abuse charges. The state, which actually investigates child abuse, was not involved in this attack or the siege. And the state had, IIRC, already investigated the BDs and not found any action to take.
In any case, the ATF certainly protected all the 13- and 14-year olds in there, amirite, Sam? They'll never be having sex again. Thanks!
maybe the president succeeded in provoking the house to reject the deal
i have heard that version and don't think it's completely crazy
Here's a quote from TPM:
Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH): "The plan is to develop a plan that will get 218 votes out of this conference, and that's a very tricky thing as we've seen over the last two years."
Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that it wins a majority in the House. It won't win 218 Republicans though. Which is why I'm relatively shocked that Boehner isn't bringing it to the floor. I thought he knew that ... I really don't get what's going on. Is Boehner just waiting until he's confirmed as speaker? This is weird.
If the House refuses to allow a vote on it, R's will get killed.
i have been consistent that the key factors in this equation are:
--the speaker and whether he wants to remain speaker
--the set of house members who are adamantly opposed to any tax increase
--the set of house members who are adamantly opposed to any compromise with the president
--the house members high concern over voting for anything that resembles a tax increase
i wish folks would not put words in my mouth
i said yesterday that there was a strong chance that there would be a delay until after the speaker was re-elected
gop house members are being told repeatedly that the only thing that matters is honoring promises to constituents. those constituents are not going to kill them for rejecting what is regarded as a bad deal
so why would a gop house member care what you think?
grover norquist tells these reps every day what is the difference between 15 and 18 percent approval ratings
again. and hopefully just maybe fr the last time:
these
reps
do
not
care
i am sorry if this disappoints you
Davey's wishing for pre-industrial revolution society again. How cute.
just working to provide the 'why'
So just sit there for years and years? It wasn't going to end peacefully. They had already made a few different deals with Koresh to get him to surrender that he just ignored.
Ordinary criminals don't keep hostages for 50 days.
Fair enough.
I'm not impressed by an article which relies on Hayek and Rothbard (!). In any case, even if some aspects of social relations appear "spontaneously" (which is dubious), many clearly do not. So yeah, much of social organization operates by design and can be changed by design.
So ... they prefer to have taxes go up on everyone? And be blamed for it?
I mean, McConnell gave Obama huge cover. He can just use the bully pulpit to beat up Republicans (and the media will go along with it for good reason). I don't get Boehner's thinking. They already got the deal. It will pass the House if he brings it to the floor. Obama gets zero percent of the blame.
Like, I get that individual reps feel like it's in their best interest to vote against it in certain cases. However, it's not in the Speaker's best interests to not allow an up/down vote after he is confirmed as Speaker. And it's certainly not in the Party's collective interest. Where are Republican elites on this?
I feel like Boehner has to be talking the talk on this, but will bring it up for a vote after the 3rd. It makes no sense otherwise. Why ask for McConnell to negotiate if you didn't want cover?
These are the actions of anarchists.
i understand that perspective
Harvey's point, and it's not wrong, is that the only people they care about - the hardcore right wing Teaper voters of their deep, deep red, gerrymandered districts - will not blame them for it. They will blame Obama, because they blame Obama for *everything* already.
a subset of
or vice versa?
This does not disappoint me, as I already have less than no respect for those reps and their constituents. Nor does it surprise me, since I am fully aware of how the world works, at least in the congressional districts we're talking about. What does disappoint me is that the speaker will not just allow an up or down vote. His seat is not in jeopardy, and if his speakership is in jeopardy over this, then he's not in a position to be an effective leader of his conference anyway. So vote on the Senate bill and let those reps vote no. If it passes without their support, they can still tell their constituents that they did the right thing. No one is obligated to care any more about what they and their constituents think then they care about what another member's constituents think.
grover norquist tells these reps every day what is the difference between 15 and 18 percent approval ratings
again. and hopefully just maybe fr the last time:
these
reps
do
not
care
i am sorry if this disappoints you
Nothing surprising about it, Harv, and you're just speaking the truth. Gerrymandered districts and unlimited cash to spend on attack ads can certainly do their work. Those Super-PACs may not be able to control a presidential race, but they're not so dumb that they don't know how to concentrate their energies and attention into enough districts and state houses to let them effectively paralyze the country.
The only possible way out of this is that the practical effect of going over the fiscal cliff might get the attention of the dimwitted souls who elect congressmen like that. And perhaps, just perhaps, they might then tell these Norquist lackeys to pull back a bit.
Failing that, the Democrats had sure as hell better start framing what's happening in the starkest political terms possible, and let the chips fall where they may.
Fox told them Obama was going to destroy the economy. When the economy tanks due to the Teaper refusal to pass rational economic policies in lieu of ideological articles of faith that taxes are evil*, the people who vote for the Teapers will be told by Fox that Obama has destroyed the economy, just like Fox predicted.
*much like Kneepants and the libertarian chorus, these people do not think about taxes as points of dry economic policy. These are *moral stands.* It's about *principles.* They're religious ideologues about taxes.
*much like Kneepants and the libertarian chorus, these people do not think about taxes as points of dry economic policy. These are *moral stands.* It's about *principles.* They're religious ideologues about taxes.
Well, obviously that holds true for most of the Kool-Aid Krowd, and there's nothing you can do about them. But when the pain starts to be felt on the individual level it's also possible that there might be enough backsliders** in enough districts to make a difference. No guarantees, but what's the short term alternative?
**or enough Harveys, meaning enough Republicans who weren't insane to begin with, but who still helped to elect the loonies in the general election by not even considering the Democratic alternative.
Of course the suits are not suggesting the government shouldn't or can't intrude in general; there's no legal basis for such a lawsuit, in contrast to this one.
It's not the court's/government's call whether it violates their morals. It's their own call. (For some reason -- perhaps in order to assuage their own consciences -- lots of liberals want to argue that the mandate to provide contraceptive coverage doesn't "really" violate the business owners' religious beliefs.) You're right it's the court's call as to whether they'll have to comply with that mandate -- but you've described the legal issue backwards. It's up to the government to show that it has a compelling interest in forcing them, not that they have a "compelling religious reason" to practice their religion.
Pissing their britches and moaning about it, as usual.
Right back at you.
If by the commonly stated and as practiced in America religious beliefs, then it clearly doesn't violate them. If you mean the individuals personal beliefs, well obviously only they know what their beliefs are, but who cares? Not in the wow I hate them sense, but in the sense that you can't run a nation allowing exceptions for every individuals beliefs.
Once society has decided the government can set laws regarding something, and the government puts those laws in place, and the laws are declared constitutional (all of which has happened for ACA) then it is up to the individual to show why those laws don't apply to them. The government does not have to justify every law to every individual. "Sorry officer, my religion insists I speed on Sundays, you must show compelling interest in limiting my freedom to speed."
No one is asking them not to practice their religion, just not to break the law.
Isn't it about determining which interest is more compelling?
They have the tiger by the tail and have no idea long term what to do.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main