finknottle

On a slightly more serious note, this is a bit of a false alarm, or more accurately premature. They aren't proposing anything (yet) beyond the framework for discussion with the goal being a government offered 401k vehicle. That could be good or bad ultimately. What worried me more when I saw the topic was whether this was the continuation of the 2008 discussions, which (like Healthcare Reform) started from the point that a new option should be mandatory, 'private' 401k's eliminated, and include the conversion of your existing accounts into a SSA-administered account. http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/...t-accounts.html

Except for people in network security, who are hopelessly confused by this thread. They now think that the DMZ is the port through which NK maintains the connection through its firewall to the outside internet, apparently html paper printouts hand delivered by a guy walking around a conference table. What these ports have to do with navy ships is even less clear.

The Education system. Most people can't understand basic economics. Math is hard. They don't want to try. Why invest when you can go to the beach, or buy an xbox?

TIPS are not the hedge they seem, owing to the peculiarities of tax law. While the monetary value of your holding is increased to keep pace with inflation, you are taxed immediately on that increase. So the bottom line (I think) is that they are better as a short term hedge, not so good long term. (But I'm not sure.)

I assume you mean things like "they are divorced from financial responsibility, and so can readily implement all kinds of employment policies for the workforce which would drive a business bankrupt. It's only taxpayer money, after all."

Except for (4), those are not federal laws, they are state laws (and in Virginia, you don't need car insurance). And therein lies the point. Some document or other say's that the Federal Government is supposed to do this and that, and all other powers are reserved for the states. And, so the argument goes, healthcare is not part of the federal governments purview. Regulation must be left to the States. [This, btw, has long been an argument of the right (prior to Bush) as to why the federal government should not be in the education business.] Proponents of a government role argue that the Commerce clause, which gives the Federal government the authority to regulate commerce between States, is enough. And that is true, if we are finally going to allow health insurers to sell across state lines. But the other side argues that forcing somebody to buy something is not interstate commerce, and that the mandate should be struck down. IMO government-run healthcare will prevail, but I do not think the argument about its unconstitutionality is groundless. Just unrealistic.

This is a point that is often misunderstood. The argument against it usually goes "C'mon, they will still hire even if their profit is cut, because half a loaf is better than none." The right way to look at it is not as if I have an on-going business and am considering hiring more people. It is to imagine I am considering a new business venture from scratch. Two things could happen: it could fail and I lose all the money I put into it, or it could succeed and I make lots of cash. I weigh the pros and cons, the likliehood of success, and calculate my expected return. If you now tell me that success means I pay 40% of any profit to the government instead of 25%, I have to think again. The odds of success have not changed, just the payoff. I lose it all, or I make a little cash. Chances are, instead of creating a new company with actual jobs I decide to play it safe and invest in government bonds. Where there is less reward, there is less willingness to risk ones money.

This time it will be different.

If you strike "exempting certain visually impaired persons..." and instead insert "visually impaired persons will be provided drivers through ACORN or other community-oriented non-profits at tax-payer expense" then I think we have a deal. Now we just have to worry about the abortion issue with respect to back-seat pregnancies. Should they be funded or not?

Nonsense. This has been and always will be a land of open roads and scenic highways. The right to drive in ones own car is as American as apple pie. We need an Autocare bill which guarantees - nay, mandates - that every American should own and operate an automobile regardless of their age or pre-existing driving conditions. We should require everyone to own a car, and provide a subsidy to those who cannot afford one. For this purpose I propose Cash for Clunkers be permanently extended. How will we pay for this? By eliminating waste and inefficiency in the Automobile industry, and going after fat-cat car loan companies.* They will be required to provide loans to any applicant, regardless of their financial history, the interest rate and profit margin will be capped, and executive salaries regulated. We will also have a property tax on high end luxury vehicles costing over $30,000.** * GMAC excepted. ** Not indexed to inflation, Union households exempted. But the real savings will be structural. We will be able to bend the curve on the increase in the price of cars. We'll set up an exchange to which manufacturers will submit their models, and only cars bought from the exchange will satisfy the consumer mandate. This way, we can ensure that the models are green and eco-friendly, preferably electric but definately not nuclear. To start, we'll only allow GM cars into the exchange, and consider Chrysler later. With 200 million new customers, GM should finally become profitable, and in time start to require a reduction in government handouts. This will translate into real deficit reduction over the next 20 years.

MD VIP plans was a service I looked into a year or so ago, simply to find out about the option. It looked attractive, but just a bit too high end. I don't know if it was just that particular plan or not. There doesn't seem to be alot of information around on that sort of thing.

The article would have you believe that Benson is a good guy and Wilson is not. I have several friends who are rabid football fans from New Orleans, and as best as I can tell Benson has been getting exactly the same kind of crap Wilson does: the Saints will never be winners until Benson is gone, he meddles, he's a cheap bastard, and so on. The difference is that the Saints won this year. So every writer with an axe to grind suddenly starts pointing to Benson and saying "See? We need an owner like that!" Wilson may or may not be the obstacle people claim. Jumping on the great-owner-Benson bandwagon only raises into question whether the writer knows anything at all.

As a small business, I agree - 5 or 10k is not going to get me to a worker unless I'm already convinced I am going to anyway. There is too much political and regulatory uncertaintity, and as somebody already pointed out I bet the hassle of getting the money greatly diminishes the savings for only one or two hires. But I'll disagree on one point, and probably take some abuse for it. I think the equity situation is overblown. All of the small companies I am dealing with have strong cash positions. The ones with cash problems are the startups, and those managing their finances on the edge. If anything, the healthy conservatively-run companies are eyeing the over extended for aquisition. And, when you think of it, that kind of cannibalism is a healthy signal in a recession. IMO the only thing slowing this down - resulting in layoffs and bancruptcies rather than consolidation - in uncertaintity over what Washington will do with new regulations and new taxes.

Were they political figures in the public eye?

Small-business set-aside. Basically, they need an 8(a) company to be a pass-through and add their cut to the contract.

Yes, but it's a permanent tax, for the continuous maintainance of an army, or more analogously, a national guard. The obligation was the same in peace and in war. In the context of the posters question, it shouldn't count.

Off the top of my head, I would argue that much of the routine fighting in the Middle Ages should be considered 'tax free.' That is, it was already budgeted for in the peace-time army. Under Feudalism, a vassal was granted his position in an agreement which called for a set amount of military service, basically some number of knights and supplies to be made available when needed. He in turn could count on his lords assistance when attacked. The key thing was that these were ready forces and obligations. If war came to the land, the designated people (think reservists) were called to duty. There were no broad mobilizations, drafts, or war taxes.

Rahm Emanuel apologizes to the disabled community for calling liberal activists "F*cking Retarded." http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...s-retarded.html Unclear was whether the apology was for using a derogatory term, or for comparing the handicapped to liberal activists.

Can't agree enough. The Run and Shoot developed his decision-making skills, and playing on an expansion team solidified his leadership skills. If he had gone to a veteren team where he sat for a year or two, and was constantly taught to play it safe, don't blow it, and let the rest of the team win the game, who knows how he would have turned out?

Contrast this with Olbermann, who said a few days ago that our current Health Care System we couldn't deal with a disaster the magnitude of Haiti's.

Question: When a company hires somebody, they make an evaluation on a bunch of factors. Some of these factors may be nothing more than a philosophy or a hunch (he went to an Ivy League school, she's a church goer, he has an honest face, or she a fellow animal lover who cares about the environment). Some of these may prove random in effect, some may prove irrelevent, and some may provide a small statistical boost to the odds that the employee works out (giving that company that slight edge). Who should decide what criteria may be applied? Each company, with their profitibility on the line? Or should the government standardize what criteria may and may not be used? If I want to hire a staff of Bill's fans based on the thinking that it will make for fantastic chemisty in the work place, despite any hard evidence, should I have the right to try that experiment and turn away Jets fans?

The Washington Times reports that the administration has downgraded intelligence collection on China. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/j...priority-spies/ Cyber attacks, stealing technology, cheating on trade agreements, a massive arms buildup, militarizing space, threatening its neighbors, propping up North Korea, repressing its own people... Nothing to see here, folks, move along.

Do you mean 'knot?'

First insightfull point I've seen in this discussion. Maybe that is what they are focusing on. Of course, I look at it with a different angle: how much of finding a franchise quarterback is luck versus coaching? I'm inclined to think it is more dependent on luck than other positions, which is why so many first rounders bust while disporportionately many of the quarterbacks that work out were late rounders. Billick has had Bills-style luck at finding a good qb, and the starter lists look pretty similar. But he took what he was dealt and usually got wildcard appearances, while the Bills stayed home.

Apparently those who think Billick is an arrogent ass think Gruden and Cowher are modest, humble, sensitive guys.