|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 06 2013 12:53 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2013 12:42 DoubleReed wrote:On November 06 2013 12:34 Adreme wrote:
I wonder if Christie is playing the long game as in he knows he wont win 2016 primary but once they get killed in the general he can win the primary in 2020 when they all learn there lesson and then win general then. He's not Xanatos... I will openly admit I have no idea what that means.
He's the evil villain from the TV show Gargoyles where even when his plans were foiled, they somehow benefited him some way. Often it was quite ridiculous.
You can even refer to this sort of plan as a Xanatos Gambit.
|
On November 06 2013 12:55 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2013 12:53 Adreme wrote:On November 06 2013 12:42 DoubleReed wrote:On November 06 2013 12:34 Adreme wrote:
I wonder if Christie is playing the long game as in he knows he wont win 2016 primary but once they get killed in the general he can win the primary in 2020 when they all learn there lesson and then win general then. He's not Xanatos... I will openly admit I have no idea what that means. He's the evil villain from the TV show Gargoyles where even when his plans were foiled, they somehow benefited him some way. Often it was quite ridiculous. You can even refer to this sort of plan as a Xanatos Gambit.
That flow chart is the greatest thing of all time.
|
Virginia. What a sweet, delicious victory. Ted Cruz, tell me why moderate republicans are satan. I can't wait. Keep destroying yourself.
|
On November 06 2013 12:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Christie is giving Conservatives a lot of ammo if he does indeed run in 2016.
He'd have a good shot. The dude unfucked Jersey's economy, helped get the shore fixed up after the storm and he has support from red and blues alike. However, I think his big margin of victory had a lot to do with how much Buono sucked. Her whole platform was Christie wants to run for President... vote for me!!
|
But but but, he thanked the President once!
|
On November 06 2013 16:15 QuanticHawk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2013 12:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Christie is giving Conservatives a lot of ammo if he does indeed run in 2016. He'd have a good shot. The dude unfucked Jersey's economy, helped get the shore fixed up after the storm and he has support from red and blues alike. However, I think his big margin of victory had a lot to do with how much Buono sucked. Her whole platform was Christie wants to run for President... vote for me!!
unfucked the state's economy? What, making public workers leave the state, giving tax breaks to the rich, and cutting benefits to middle class while new jersey still remains to have much higher unemployment than the national average?
Or maybe you're talking about that tunnel that he cancelled?
Christie exacerbated the recession with his regressive austerity policies and continues to do so. Just like all conservatives, they use simplistic economics and compare everything to a "checkbook." Proceeds to do bad, dumb budgeting and people call him "tough" and "serious." What a joke.
|
From Frances Coppola. Largely regarding the UK, but the US as well. Emphasis original. Link
IN DEFENCE OF BIG BANKS
My comment on the BBC's Newsnight programme that failures of big banks are very rare and that RBS was an "aberration" caused something of a storm. Some people said that they were "shocked and horrified" that I was "defending TBTF". Others complained about the behaviour of big banks in recent years. But I did not defend TBTF, and I did not defend the behaviour of banks. My comment was simply a statement of fact. Big banks fail very rarely. RBS's failure was the first failure of a big bank in the UK for over 100 years. ...
I repeat, small financial firms that are lightly regulated and supervised because they are thought not to be a danger are more often the cause of systemic crises than anything else. Particularly if they are involved in property lending, as they were in the UK's Secondary Banking Crisis, the US's Savings & Loan Crisis and the 2008 financial crisis. From Faisal Islam's book "The Default Line":
"What is the most dangerous toxic financial asset in the world?" This was the question put to me by the chief executive of a leading European bank. Anxious to display my superior knowledge of the darkest corners of the shadow banking system, I replied: "Credit default swaps on super-senior tranches of asset-backed, security-collateralised debt obligations". I thought I had come up with a pretty pithy answer.
"No," he gently chided me. "The most dangerous financial product in the world," he paused a moment for effect, "is the mortgage". ...
I emphatically do NOT defend "too big to fail". I want to see bank resolution regimes put in place that will allow even the largest banks to fail safely. And I have suggested ways of protecting the most important parts of the financial system - the payments system, the central bank and the funding network - from the consequences of large bank failure. I accept completely that the presence in a country of banks whose balance sheets dwarf GDP can present a considerable risk to its economy, as Iceland and Cyprus have amply demonstrated. But let's not forget that the history of financial crises is generally one of SMALL bank failure, and bailouts of small banks for systemic reasons are far more common than bailouts of large banks. We have become so mesmerised by the possibility of meltdown from giant bank failure that we do not see the real danger, which is that once again we allow the growth of an unregulated, unsupervised small bank sector which will in due course cause yet another "unforeseeable" financial crisis.
|
And more changes to the ACA. Link
Administration Looks To Give Labor Unions Health Tax Relief
Weeks after denying labor's request to give union members access to health law subsidies, the Obama administration is signaling it intends to exempt some union plans from one of the law's substantial taxes.
Buried in rules issued last week is the disclosure that the administration will propose exempting "certain self-insured, self-administered plans" from the law's temporary reinsurance fee in 2015 and 2016.
That's a description that applies to many Taft-Hartley union plans acting as their own insurance company and claims processor, said Edward Fensholt, a senior vice president at Lockton Cos., a large insurance broker.
The fee starts at $63 per insurance plan member next year. Over three years starting in 2014, the tax has been expected to raise $25 billion. ...
|
On November 07 2013 02:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:And more changes to the ACA. LinkShow nested quote +Administration Looks To Give Labor Unions Health Tax Relief
Weeks after denying labor's request to give union members access to health law subsidies, the Obama administration is signaling it intends to exempt some union plans from one of the law's substantial taxes.
Buried in rules issued last week is the disclosure that the administration will propose exempting "certain self-insured, self-administered plans" from the law's temporary reinsurance fee in 2015 and 2016.
That's a description that applies to many Taft-Hartley union plans acting as their own insurance company and claims processor, said Edward Fensholt, a senior vice president at Lockton Cos., a large insurance broker.
The fee starts at $63 per insurance plan member next year. Over three years starting in 2014, the tax has been expected to raise $25 billion. ...
Brilliant idea. Give unions special exemptions for their healthcare plans while non-union workers remain fucked under the current regulations.
Someone asked a few days ago why my plan from my wife's employer was canceled. They didn't say specifically, but I guarantee that it was because of this tax.
|
On November 07 2013 02:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 02:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:And more changes to the ACA. LinkAdministration Looks To Give Labor Unions Health Tax Relief
Weeks after denying labor's request to give union members access to health law subsidies, the Obama administration is signaling it intends to exempt some union plans from one of the law's substantial taxes.
Buried in rules issued last week is the disclosure that the administration will propose exempting "certain self-insured, self-administered plans" from the law's temporary reinsurance fee in 2015 and 2016.
That's a description that applies to many Taft-Hartley union plans acting as their own insurance company and claims processor, said Edward Fensholt, a senior vice president at Lockton Cos., a large insurance broker.
The fee starts at $63 per insurance plan member next year. Over three years starting in 2014, the tax has been expected to raise $25 billion. ... Brilliant idea. Give unions special exemptions for their healthcare plans while non-union workers remain fucked under the current regulations. Someone asked a few days ago why my plan from my wife's employer was canceled. They didn't say specifically, but I guarantee that it was because of this tax.
Ill admit it looks weird and fishy. Exceptions should be based on income for those getting insurance. Not on if its a union plan or not.
|
On November 07 2013 02:36 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 02:30 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 02:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:And more changes to the ACA. LinkAdministration Looks To Give Labor Unions Health Tax Relief
Weeks after denying labor's request to give union members access to health law subsidies, the Obama administration is signaling it intends to exempt some union plans from one of the law's substantial taxes.
Buried in rules issued last week is the disclosure that the administration will propose exempting "certain self-insured, self-administered plans" from the law's temporary reinsurance fee in 2015 and 2016.
That's a description that applies to many Taft-Hartley union plans acting as their own insurance company and claims processor, said Edward Fensholt, a senior vice president at Lockton Cos., a large insurance broker.
The fee starts at $63 per insurance plan member next year. Over three years starting in 2014, the tax has been expected to raise $25 billion. ... Brilliant idea. Give unions special exemptions for their healthcare plans while non-union workers remain fucked under the current regulations. Someone asked a few days ago why my plan from my wife's employer was canceled. They didn't say specifically, but I guarantee that it was because of this tax. Ill admit it looks weird and fishy. Exceptions should be based on income for those getting insurance. Not on if its a union plan or not.
There's nothing weird or fishy about it. It's an obvious attempt to subsidize unions and their membership for political reasons.
|
On November 07 2013 02:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 02:36 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2013 02:30 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 02:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:And more changes to the ACA. LinkAdministration Looks To Give Labor Unions Health Tax Relief
Weeks after denying labor's request to give union members access to health law subsidies, the Obama administration is signaling it intends to exempt some union plans from one of the law's substantial taxes.
Buried in rules issued last week is the disclosure that the administration will propose exempting "certain self-insured, self-administered plans" from the law's temporary reinsurance fee in 2015 and 2016.
That's a description that applies to many Taft-Hartley union plans acting as their own insurance company and claims processor, said Edward Fensholt, a senior vice president at Lockton Cos., a large insurance broker.
The fee starts at $63 per insurance plan member next year. Over three years starting in 2014, the tax has been expected to raise $25 billion. ... Brilliant idea. Give unions special exemptions for their healthcare plans while non-union workers remain fucked under the current regulations. Someone asked a few days ago why my plan from my wife's employer was canceled. They didn't say specifically, but I guarantee that it was because of this tax. Ill admit it looks weird and fishy. Exceptions should be based on income for those getting insurance. Not on if its a union plan or not. There's nothing weird or fishy about it. It's an obvious attempt to subsidize unions and their membership for political reasons.
Don't worry xDaunt. Maybe your wife will help unionize her coworkers. You should be encouraging stronger unions. Capitalism will be healthier in the long run with a stronger labor force.
|
On November 07 2013 03:05 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 02:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 02:36 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2013 02:30 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 02:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:And more changes to the ACA. LinkAdministration Looks To Give Labor Unions Health Tax Relief
Weeks after denying labor's request to give union members access to health law subsidies, the Obama administration is signaling it intends to exempt some union plans from one of the law's substantial taxes.
Buried in rules issued last week is the disclosure that the administration will propose exempting "certain self-insured, self-administered plans" from the law's temporary reinsurance fee in 2015 and 2016.
That's a description that applies to many Taft-Hartley union plans acting as their own insurance company and claims processor, said Edward Fensholt, a senior vice president at Lockton Cos., a large insurance broker.
The fee starts at $63 per insurance plan member next year. Over three years starting in 2014, the tax has been expected to raise $25 billion. ... Brilliant idea. Give unions special exemptions for their healthcare plans while non-union workers remain fucked under the current regulations. Someone asked a few days ago why my plan from my wife's employer was canceled. They didn't say specifically, but I guarantee that it was because of this tax. Ill admit it looks weird and fishy. Exceptions should be based on income for those getting insurance. Not on if its a union plan or not. There's nothing weird or fishy about it. It's an obvious attempt to subsidize unions and their membership for political reasons. Don't worry xDaunt. Maybe your wife will help unionize her coworkers. You should be encouraging stronger unions. Capitalism will be healthier in the long run with a stronger labor force.
Yeah, unions worked wonders for the US auto industry and local and state governments.
Oh, wait.
|
Unions did work wonders for both the auto industry and government employees, only the throws of globalization brought out the worst in them. As for the Obamacare union exception, I'm rather used to being disappointed the day after elections.
|
On November 07 2013 03:05 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 02:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 02:36 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2013 02:30 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 02:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:And more changes to the ACA. LinkAdministration Looks To Give Labor Unions Health Tax Relief
Weeks after denying labor's request to give union members access to health law subsidies, the Obama administration is signaling it intends to exempt some union plans from one of the law's substantial taxes.
Buried in rules issued last week is the disclosure that the administration will propose exempting "certain self-insured, self-administered plans" from the law's temporary reinsurance fee in 2015 and 2016.
That's a description that applies to many Taft-Hartley union plans acting as their own insurance company and claims processor, said Edward Fensholt, a senior vice president at Lockton Cos., a large insurance broker.
The fee starts at $63 per insurance plan member next year. Over three years starting in 2014, the tax has been expected to raise $25 billion. ... Brilliant idea. Give unions special exemptions for their healthcare plans while non-union workers remain fucked under the current regulations. Someone asked a few days ago why my plan from my wife's employer was canceled. They didn't say specifically, but I guarantee that it was because of this tax. Ill admit it looks weird and fishy. Exceptions should be based on income for those getting insurance. Not on if its a union plan or not. There's nothing weird or fishy about it. It's an obvious attempt to subsidize unions and their membership for political reasons. Don't worry xDaunt. Maybe your wife will help unionize her coworkers. You should be encouraging stronger unions. Capitalism will be healthier in the long run with a stronger labor force.
But unions usually result in a weaker labor force 
|
On November 07 2013 03:05 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 02:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 02:36 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2013 02:30 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 02:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:And more changes to the ACA. LinkAdministration Looks To Give Labor Unions Health Tax Relief
Weeks after denying labor's request to give union members access to health law subsidies, the Obama administration is signaling it intends to exempt some union plans from one of the law's substantial taxes.
Buried in rules issued last week is the disclosure that the administration will propose exempting "certain self-insured, self-administered plans" from the law's temporary reinsurance fee in 2015 and 2016.
That's a description that applies to many Taft-Hartley union plans acting as their own insurance company and claims processor, said Edward Fensholt, a senior vice president at Lockton Cos., a large insurance broker.
The fee starts at $63 per insurance plan member next year. Over three years starting in 2014, the tax has been expected to raise $25 billion. ... Brilliant idea. Give unions special exemptions for their healthcare plans while non-union workers remain fucked under the current regulations. Someone asked a few days ago why my plan from my wife's employer was canceled. They didn't say specifically, but I guarantee that it was because of this tax. Ill admit it looks weird and fishy. Exceptions should be based on income for those getting insurance. Not on if its a union plan or not. There's nothing weird or fishy about it. It's an obvious attempt to subsidize unions and their membership for political reasons. Don't worry xDaunt. Maybe your wife will help unionize her coworkers. You should be encouraging stronger unions. Capitalism will be healthier in the long run with a stronger labor force.
While I am all for strong unions (if used correctly, which in the US there often not). Making exceptions to force people into unions for healthcare isn't the way to go.
|
On November 07 2013 03:09 farvacola wrote:
Unions did work wonders for both the auto industry and government employees, only the throws of globalization brought out the worst in them. As for the Obamacare union exception, I'm rather used to being disappointed the day after elections.
Yeah, they did good like 100 years ago. Past 30 years? Not so much, unless you think bankrupting industries with outrageous pension and compensation demands is good.
|
It is incredibly non-useful to discuss unions in an ahistoric vacuum; "unions usually" circa 1965 means something entirely different than, "unions usually" circa 2008.
My point is that unions are definitely complicit in a lot of troubling wage distortions and budget deficits, but to lay these problems at the feet of unions alone is to ignore what globalization is and what it does. Unions need to change, but they are not fundamentally flawed enough to say, "unions are bad, mmkay."
|
On November 07 2013 03:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 03:05 IgnE wrote:On November 07 2013 02:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 02:36 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2013 02:30 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 02:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:And more changes to the ACA. LinkAdministration Looks To Give Labor Unions Health Tax Relief
Weeks after denying labor's request to give union members access to health law subsidies, the Obama administration is signaling it intends to exempt some union plans from one of the law's substantial taxes.
Buried in rules issued last week is the disclosure that the administration will propose exempting "certain self-insured, self-administered plans" from the law's temporary reinsurance fee in 2015 and 2016.
That's a description that applies to many Taft-Hartley union plans acting as their own insurance company and claims processor, said Edward Fensholt, a senior vice president at Lockton Cos., a large insurance broker.
The fee starts at $63 per insurance plan member next year. Over three years starting in 2014, the tax has been expected to raise $25 billion. ... Brilliant idea. Give unions special exemptions for their healthcare plans while non-union workers remain fucked under the current regulations. Someone asked a few days ago why my plan from my wife's employer was canceled. They didn't say specifically, but I guarantee that it was because of this tax. Ill admit it looks weird and fishy. Exceptions should be based on income for those getting insurance. Not on if its a union plan or not. There's nothing weird or fishy about it. It's an obvious attempt to subsidize unions and their membership for political reasons. Don't worry xDaunt. Maybe your wife will help unionize her coworkers. You should be encouraging stronger unions. Capitalism will be healthier in the long run with a stronger labor force. But unions usually result in a weaker labor force
What do you mean ?
|
On November 07 2013 03:37 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 03:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 07 2013 03:05 IgnE wrote:On November 07 2013 02:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 02:36 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2013 02:30 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 02:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:And more changes to the ACA. LinkAdministration Looks To Give Labor Unions Health Tax Relief
Weeks after denying labor's request to give union members access to health law subsidies, the Obama administration is signaling it intends to exempt some union plans from one of the law's substantial taxes.
Buried in rules issued last week is the disclosure that the administration will propose exempting "certain self-insured, self-administered plans" from the law's temporary reinsurance fee in 2015 and 2016.
That's a description that applies to many Taft-Hartley union plans acting as their own insurance company and claims processor, said Edward Fensholt, a senior vice president at Lockton Cos., a large insurance broker.
The fee starts at $63 per insurance plan member next year. Over three years starting in 2014, the tax has been expected to raise $25 billion. ... Brilliant idea. Give unions special exemptions for their healthcare plans while non-union workers remain fucked under the current regulations. Someone asked a few days ago why my plan from my wife's employer was canceled. They didn't say specifically, but I guarantee that it was because of this tax. Ill admit it looks weird and fishy. Exceptions should be based on income for those getting insurance. Not on if its a union plan or not. There's nothing weird or fishy about it. It's an obvious attempt to subsidize unions and their membership for political reasons. Don't worry xDaunt. Maybe your wife will help unionize her coworkers. You should be encouraging stronger unions. Capitalism will be healthier in the long run with a stronger labor force. But unions usually result in a weaker labor force What do you mean ?
They engage in activities that weaken worker skills and limit their ability to employ their skills. They do some good too, but on net they result in a workforce that's less productive (generally) and less in demand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
