Invite ye felawes and frendes desirous in gold to enter the gates of Shrewd'm, for they will thanke ye later.
- Manlobbi
Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)
No. of Recommendations: 0
Whether it's Pelosi, any Democrat, any Republican: Good for you for insider trading.
ANYTHING that compromises you people. ANYTHING that enlarges the moat between you people and your Ruling Class.
ANYTHING that helps erode faith in your 'institutions'
I 100% support, and applaud.
Trump said "not paying taxes makes him smart.....change the laws if you don't like it"
Well, Pelosi made money on insider knowledge..... "that makes her smart, if you dont like it, change the laws"
Until then, it's a beautiful thing.
Punishment - knows no partisanship.
No. of Recommendations: 4
The country won’t move forward until it has 2 serious political parties.
The democrats can’t agree that criminals should be punished and that being an American citizen means anything. They believe that dressing up like a stuffed giraffe is a serious political statement. Racist to the core, they believe that minorities are too stupid to figure out how to get ID but still demand 5 forms of it to shovel snow.
They run and hide on most topics. Witness all of our illegal immigration debates. They just can’t come out and propose actual legislation to basically throw open the border; that would look bad.
No. of Recommendations: 8
The country won’t move forward until it has 2 serious political parties.
I agree. But I disagree about which party is at fault. It's the Republicans, about 75% (Dems have to take some blame).
The key to democracy is negotiation (in good faith) and compromise. Since at least Newt, the Reps have not wanted to do that. They want to cram their agenda down the throats of the People. Boehner learned that when he tried to do an old-style compromise, and was basically forced out by his own party. They are, therefore, not a serious party. They are the party of authoritarians, not pro-democracy.
As for racists, the Reps are the kings. Not all Reps are racist, but most racists are Reps. We've seen that time and again, from the Southern Strategy to the overt support by racists groups of Reps since 2016.
No. of Recommendations: 7
Racist to the core, they believe that minorities are too stupid to figure out how to get ID but still demand 5 forms of it to shovel snow.
I’ve lived in the northeast for 75 years and believe me, I’ve shoveled a LOT of snow over those 75 years (OK, probably not as much as the bullshit the right shovels on this board, but still a lot!).
In my entire life, I have NEVER been asked to show 1 form of ID, let alone 5. NEVER!
I mean, if someone is stupid enough to shovel snow, why would you stop them?
I finally got smart last year and bought an electric snow shovel blower. Half toy, half tool. This year it’s been a God send.
Oh, and I had to show ID to register to vote and again each time I vote.
I don’t know where you get you information from, but they’re lying to you.
No. of Recommendations: 3
But I disagree about which party is at faultOf course you do.
The key to democracy is negotiation (in good faith) and compromise. Since at least Newt, the Reps have not wanted to do that.I’m not surprised (that you would remember it this way).
Obama said “elections have consequences” and “I won” when the GOP tried to deal on health care. Remember that?
Then you could have had a deal for Dreamers and on border stuff during Trump’s first term but Feinstein blew that up. I’ve posted that one at least 4 times here. Remember that?
As for racistsPlease. Let’s ask Mr. ‘I’m just like you, I got 960 on the SATs and can’t read’ Gavin Newsom.
Or my favorite:
https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/white-liber... A new study suggests that white Americans who hold liberal socio-political views use language that makes them appear less competent in an effort to get along with racial minorities.Lol
The democrats were the party of the klan, of Jim Crow and now of the Great White Father version of racism that tells minorities they’re too dumb to things for themselves (such as getting voter ID).
No. of Recommendations: 0
they’re lying to you.
They are telling you their imaginary claims--because they are not allowed to vote. Or they would be deported if they tried to to so.
No. of Recommendations: 4
My favorite line from your link was (bold mine):
The difference wasn’t statistically significant in speeches by Republican candidates, though “it was harder to find speeches from Republicans delivered to minority audiences,” Dupree notes.
I’m sure that wasn’t because of, you know, racism. </eyeroll>
No. of Recommendations: 0
The democrats were the party of the klan, of Jim Crow...
The operative word is "were".
For healthcare, the Reps didn't want it at all, even when Obama crafted a program that included some elements from the Heritage Foundation (very conservative). They strung him along as long as the could, but in the end they had no intention of voting for any healthcare for Americans. So, since they wouldn't negotiate in good faith, he did what he was elected to do. Later Reps actually said out loud "we're going to take away healthcare for Americans" (which they failed to do, fortunately).
The fact remains that most racists (people that fit a general definition of "racist") identify as Republican. Simultaneously, Republicans view racism as less of a problem than Dems (the latest numbers I found were 72% of Dems see it as a major problem, but only 39% of Reps). Which makes sense. One would not hold their views as a "major problem".
No. of Recommendations: 4
Obama crafted a program that included some elements from the Heritage Foundation
Obamacare is almost the most radically conservative, and truly libertarian, law possible.
About the only way to make this law even more radically conservative (and non-libertarian) would be to require everyone to buy a new gun and a case of ammunition for each gun owned every year.
The new healthcare law does not require anyone to buy healthcare insurance. This is totally a libertarian concept.
What the new law does is impose "personal responsibility" on people. Benefits for making good choices and being required to pay the costs of making poor choices. No mandatory "sharing" of benefits gained or costs incurred. You choose--so you win or lose based on which way you bet. That is also most certainly BOTH a conservative AND libertarian concept.
It differs from "what was" because, historically, the price of healthcare insurance could be literally unaffordable. Thus, it was not an option to buy or not buy. Because it was unaffordable, that meant it could not be purchased given the income of those who wanted to buy it. The PPACA (Obamacare) subsidizes the cost of healthcare--making it affordable for everyone. Thus, NOT having healthcare insurance is no longer due to it being unaffordable. Not having healthcare insurance now is a choice freely made.
The new healthcare law requires the payment of a relatively modest penalty for not having healthcare insurance. The reasoning is fairly simple. The question is not "if" someone will ever need healthcare. It is a matter of "when" and "how much". A small reminder is exactly what the penalty is (like your mother saying "You should have it"). People know they are now being held accountable for their choices--whatever the outcome. They have the choice of having healthcare insurance or paying the penalty for not having it--in terms of real money--as a result.
Choosing to not buy health insurance is a choice. Why that choice is made is irrelevant. The potential of saving money is a valid reason and there may be other reasons as well. The key point is it is a choice made.
If someone does not require significant healthcare during the year, that person gets to keep the full savings (= premiums not paid, by choice). The person made a conscious choice to take the risk--and it paid off for him/her. This is totally a conservative and libertarian way of thinking.
What about the person who made the choice--but then needed healthcare?
The real penalty is only incurred when people who chose to not buy healthcare insurance require significant healthcare--and they run up the bills accordingly.
Because these people chose to not have healthcare insurance, they are required to pay the full cost of their healthcare out of their own pocket. This is also totally a conservative and libertarian way of thinking. Those people made the choice, took the risk, and it turned out to be the wrong choice. Those people pay the price for making that wrong choice. Lesson learned?
The above paragraph is very important. The "writing off" of medical care provided by an emergency room will be greatly reduced in the near future. The healthcare law will dramatically increase payments to emergency rooms for medical care actually delivered. That means the local governments that operate those facilities will see a significant drop in unpaid invoices they send for medical care--which means lower taxes for taxpayers. This financial incentive will cause even more bills to be turned over to collection agencies and aggressively pursued because the person who incurred the expenses will be expected to have had insurance--but chose to not have it. The people who will mostly get hit by this surprise expense will tend to be younger (in their twenties) and have the "I am invulnerable" mindset. Getting hit with $20k in medical bills for one incident might change their minds about the need for healthcare insurance. But it will be far harder to get out of those debts because the public expectation of "pay your own way" for healthcare is now a "personal responsibility".
Conservatives do not really believe in accepting "personal responsibility"--but they keep talking about it. Because the decision to buy or NOT buy healthcare insurance is at the individual/family level, so are the rewards AND penalties of the choice made. There is no way conservatives can shift "personal responsibility" for the outcome of Jim Bob's choice to someone else. They can not shift the reward if Jim Bob takes the risk and does not have many medical expenses--Jim Bob did it himself, so he gets to keep ALL the savings. Successful risk-taking yields the reward to the person who earned it. There is no socialism or communism anywhere in that bet made by Jim Bob--no sharing of risk AND no sharing of the reward. The opposite is also true. There is no sharing of the loss if Jim Bob did need significant medical care. The bills are all his--nobody else's.
Why conservatives AND the Tea Party/libertarians would oppose a law that imposes one of their deepest wishes into law is something they can never explain. They should be bowing at Obama's feet for actually doing what conservatives AND libertarians have dreamed for generations.
