I don't see how much more they can cut after Obama's 700 Billion for AHCA (which probably will drive up costs because suddenly everyone HAS to have healthcare or pay a government fine).
You're misunderstanding the economics of health insurance and where that $700 billion came from. The $700 billion comes almost entirely from reducing operating costs by killing an expensive partial-privatization initiative, and so doesn't actually cut any Medicare benefits. Second, getting more people on insurance will reduce premiums. That's just how health insurance works - the more people in an insurance pool, the lower the variance on the pool's expenses, so the insurance company can afford smaller margins. It will also prevent people from only buying insurance when they get sick, so there's going to be a slightly larger percentage of healthy people in said health insurance pools.
All things considered, the AHCA is going to make health care a whole lot better, although the bill could be made better by implementing public single-payer health insurance like most other civilized countries.
Plus you can't take money from the job creators, because then that's money they don't have to pay more employees.
You're seriously buying into the "rich people are job creators and we can't possibly hurt them" bullshit? The rate at which people invest is much more strongly dependent on economic growth expectations than it is on taxes - as the past decade has shown quite well, lowering taxes on the wealthy does not significantly impact job creation and economic growth. Plus, the situation hasn't been helped by the number of government workers actually decreasing over the past two years.
well the other thing becomes let's at least not raise taxes on wealthy business owners. (wealthy families who've been just sitting on their money and living on the interest by all means tax) I don't have an exact figure handy, but I believe in 2009 there was an increase in government workers, so they'd just be coming back down to normal levels. A lot of governors have managed to pull their states out of economic slumps and put them on the road to growth without raising any taxes. (Something I see Indiana about to do and wondering why the hell, when Kentucky votes Republican for the election, can't put a republican in the gubernatorial mansion)
And I'd be okay with a single-payer system, I really would. Let's make Medicaid a basic low-level plan for every citizen of the US and then the insurance companies can create add-on plans to cover stuff like electives and really major surgeries.
See the chart I linked - Public sector employment spiked in '09, but right now it's down about 3% since the beginning of term, while private-sector employment is back to '08 levels.
well the other thing becomes let's at least not raise taxes on wealthy business owners. (wealthy families who've been just sitting on their money and living on the interest by all means tax)
I'm sorry, but I have no fucking clue how you think to make that distinction.
Actually, I should be saying that that distinction doesn't exist: All of the upper half a percent or so by dint of having lots of investments are business owners in some sense, despite the fact that people like Mitt Romney could literally not work a day in their lives and yet make more money in a week than anyone on this forum makes in an entire year.
The "wealthy" business owners are the people we should be taxing, because those business owners can easily afford the extra expense.
"Spent more money than all previous presidents combined?" "No noticeable end?" Where are you getting these from? I consider the economic stimulus to have been at least somewhat useful (pretty much as useful as one that size could be), and I'd vote for him on the basis of getting AHCA passed alone.
The Republicans would do literally exactly what Obama would, except for the parts where they cut Medicare, cut taxes for the rich, raise taxes on the poor, and institutionalize racism, misogyny, and homophobia.
QFT
I just can't vote for a guy, or a congress, that spent more money than all presidents previous combined to no noticeable end and who can't even own up to that fact. Hell I'd at least respect Obama if he would just say "Yeah, I said I'd do that, and I didn't achieve it."
Yeah I agreed with him in that Isidewith thing, but other than that I know nothing about him. Just vote Obama, even if it's just as a not-Romney vote.
Yeah see no I was going to vote Romney because he was a not-Obama vote.
If you're going to vote for a misogynistic, libertarian, tax-evading liar for spite, then you should probably just leave the US and find a country more suited to your morality, like Somalia.
What's considered appropriate dress for going to the symphony these days? I've seen videos of people attending in a tux and all that, but I'm not sure if that's still standard in the current, somewhat less formal, era.
Basically, the Video Game Orchestra (AKA VGO) is having a concert at Boston's Symphony Hall in October, and one of their special guests is my all time favorite video game composer, Noriyuki Iwadare. I figured jeans and t-shirt would obviously be inappropriate, but what would be okay? Business casual? Suit and tie? Is it still tux time?
I dressed up when I went to go see VGO last year, but I was definitely in the minority. Most of the attendees were casual, even some who were downright slovenly.
Edit: I would also note that this was only with VGO specifically. When I went to go see the Final Fantasy concert, the general attire was much higher, though there were still some casual goers here and there.
All the more reason to dress up. Your manner of dress reflects how you carry yourself and how others perceive you, so dress like you own the ground you walk on. I wear jeans to class every day, but they're Rogue Territory jeans. I dress to kill, and people notice.
I used to believe (or, more accurately, wish and pretend) that wasn't true and wear Old Navy bootcuts and TeeFury shirts everyday, but the fact of the matter is that people really do consider it. If you can get away with wearing a suit somewhere, do it. Studies show that your mood measurably (by chemical analysis) gets better when you do, as a bonus.
You can dress well without participating in conspicuous consumerism nonsense. Your manner of dress is more important than the brands names you've got on your person.
Actually, my jeans are pretty much unbranded save for the uppermost button (hidden by my belt) and the leather brand patch (hidden by my shirt). The difference is all in the cut and fabric. The RTs are tight, thick raw selvedge denim with an ultra-dark indigo wash. Fades are just starting to wear in, and I'm psyched.
I'm wearing an old pair of Old Navy bootcut jeans right now (labwear, natch) and the ringspun denim feels thin and really loose; they're overfaded and they don't hold a cuff. Also, no hug in the crotch and thigh.
Clothes are all about the wear, definitely not the brand. In fact, if anyone wants a really nice pair of jeans, I recommend Unbranded. It's Naked & Famous with no branding. You can get a pair of raw selvedge jeans that would usually cost $250 for $75, and their rises are really, really nice.
/denim geek
EDIT: Actually, I don't think I own a single piece of clothing with visible branding (beyond the jean buttons and patches). I hate that shit. My brother has a pair of True Religion jeans and they're the most aggresively overstyled, branded, and overpriced jeans I've ever seen. Just buy a pair of red-piped Levis. They still kick all sorts of ass.
I never spend more than $20 on jeans, but then, I never used jeans when I wanted to be "dressed up" so that's a whole other world that I've never been in. :-)
I had good luck with dress slacks, dress shirts, ties, reasonably nice (but inexpensive) watch to add a tiny bit of shine...
Even when I was trying to impress the ladies I never would have spent more than $40 on pants or $30 on a shirt. Not a chance in hell. A $150 watch was my limit, although I owned three watches at the time (and only one was as high as $150).
Yeah, a lot of my nicest clothing is gifts or stuff I've nabbed from family members. Otherwise, most of my shirts and stuff come from H&M, Uniqlo, or similar.
Actually, my favorite shirt is a $25 100% white linen deal from H&M. The bottom and cuffs are blued from my jeans' indigo dye, and the shoulder straps are a bit frayed from where I used them to hold fly hooks while fishing. That shirt has gotten me some phone numbers.
FWIW, I usually dress up in jeans and a polo shirt or sweater, depending on time of year. I do enjoy wearing a suit every so often, though I'm not 100% sure I'd like to have to wear one all the time.
I usually spend at least $60 on a pair of jeans because usually anything under is not very comfortable IMO. Most of my jeans are Kr3w because they're fucking smooth on the skin and I dig the way they look. Also they're usually stretch denim and I dig me some stretch denim.
Yeah I agreed with him in that Isidewith thing, but other than that I know nothing about him. Just vote Obama, even if it's just as a not-Romney vote.
Yeah see no I was going to vote Romney because he was a not-Obama vote.
If you're going to vote for a misogynistic, libertarian, tax-evading liar for spite, then you should probably just leave the US and find a country more suited to your morality, like Somalia.
There is no current version called platinum. Their are constant rumor/predictions that a platinum tier will open up but so far it has not materialized.
Yeah I agreed with him in that Isidewith thing, but other than that I know nothing about him. Just vote Obama, even if it's just as a not-Romney vote.
Yeah see no I was going to vote Romney because he was a not-Obama vote.
If you're going to vote for a misogynistic, libertarian, tax-evading liar for spite, then you should probably just leave the US and find a country more suited to your morality, like Somalia.
Yeah, say what you will about Obama's politics, but at least he doesn't believe that a woman's rights end where her uterus begins. Voting for someone who believes that just to spite our current president is utterly Paleolithic.
Yeah, Obama ain't perfect (I had an interesting discussion a couple weeks back that Obama, ironically enough, would've been a better fit as Secretary of State than President, given his calm, rational demeanor), but he's a better option than anyone else out there with a lick of a chance of winning.
Obama is a massive disappointment and I think our country is headed for a Roman style collapse, but I'm not going to egg it on with a Romney vote.
It's difficult to call Obama a massive disappointment given how he had a Congress whose sole purpose is to metaphorically shoot him down at every opportunity for a significant portion of his term in office. Granted, I personally feel Obama will go down in history as a "mediocre to average" President at best, even if he wins re-election.
Yeah, say what you will about Obama's politics, but at least he doesn't believe that a woman's rights end where her uterus begins. Voting for someone who believes that just to spite our current president is utterly Paleolithic.
Comments
Second, getting more people on insurance will reduce premiums. That's just how health insurance works - the more people in an insurance pool, the lower the variance on the pool's expenses, so the insurance company can afford smaller margins. It will also prevent people from only buying insurance when they get sick, so there's going to be a slightly larger percentage of healthy people in said health insurance pools.
All things considered, the AHCA is going to make health care a whole lot better, although the bill could be made better by implementing public single-payer health insurance like most other civilized countries. You're seriously buying into the "rich people are job creators and we can't possibly hurt them" bullshit? The rate at which people invest is much more strongly dependent on economic growth expectations than it is on taxes - as the past decade has shown quite well, lowering taxes on the wealthy does not significantly impact job creation and economic growth. Plus, the situation hasn't been helped by the number of government workers actually decreasing over the past two years.
And I'd be okay with a single-payer system, I really would. Let's make Medicaid a basic low-level plan for every citizen of the US and then the insurance companies can create add-on plans to cover stuff like electives and really major surgeries.
Actually, I should be saying that that distinction doesn't exist: All of the upper half a percent or so by dint of having lots of investments are business owners in some sense, despite the fact that people like Mitt Romney could literally not work a day in their lives and yet make more money in a week than anyone on this forum makes in an entire year.
The "wealthy" business owners are the people we should be taxing, because those business owners can easily afford the extra expense.
Basically, the Video Game Orchestra (AKA VGO) is having a concert at Boston's Symphony Hall in October, and one of their special guests is my all time favorite video game composer, Noriyuki Iwadare. I figured jeans and t-shirt would obviously be inappropriate, but what would be okay? Business casual? Suit and tie? Is it still tux time?
Edit: I would also note that this was only with VGO specifically. When I went to go see the Final Fantasy concert, the general attire was much higher, though there were still some casual goers here and there.
I used to believe (or, more accurately, wish and pretend) that wasn't true and wear Old Navy bootcuts and TeeFury shirts everyday, but the fact of the matter is that people really do consider it. If you can get away with wearing a suit somewhere, do it. Studies show that your mood measurably (by chemical analysis) gets better when you do, as a bonus.
I'm wearing an old pair of Old Navy bootcut jeans right now (labwear, natch) and the ringspun denim feels thin and really loose; they're overfaded and they don't hold a cuff. Also, no hug in the crotch and thigh.
Clothes are all about the wear, definitely not the brand. In fact, if anyone wants a really nice pair of jeans, I recommend Unbranded. It's Naked & Famous with no branding. You can get a pair of raw selvedge jeans that would usually cost $250 for $75, and their rises are really, really nice.
/denim geek
EDIT: Actually, I don't think I own a single piece of clothing with visible branding (beyond the jean buttons and patches). I hate that shit. My brother has a pair of True Religion jeans and they're the most aggresively overstyled, branded, and overpriced jeans I've ever seen. Just buy a pair of red-piped Levis. They still kick all sorts of ass.
I had good luck with dress slacks, dress shirts, ties, reasonably nice (but inexpensive) watch to add a tiny bit of shine...
Even when I was trying to impress the ladies I never would have spent more than $40 on pants or $30 on a shirt. Not a chance in hell. A $150 watch was my limit, although I owned three watches at the time (and only one was as high as $150).
Actually, my favorite shirt is a $25 100% white linen deal from H&M. The bottom and cuffs are blued from my jeans' indigo dye, and the shoulder straps are a bit frayed from where I used them to hold fly hooks while fishing. That shirt has gotten me some phone numbers.
I walked into Express for Men once and almost immediately walked back out... H&M makes me feel old just looking in the windows.
FWIW, I usually dress up in jeans and a polo shirt or sweater, depending on time of year. I do enjoy wearing a suit every so often, though I'm not 100% sure I'd like to have to wear one all the time.
He also doesn't really have an issue with Guantanamo beyond paying it some lip service. He's just right of center and to call him a Liberal is a joke.