Bolas

Does this mean you are against government healthcare? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Absent video, bruises, or some other sign of force doesn't it just boil down to her word against his? Even those can be circumstantial. Of course this case is not about a conviction, only to get him in custody. Similar to starting the Capone case with tax law violations. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

All of a sudden I'm feeling like all my years in school was a waste of time. :) It's a very expensive check box/database filter that while doesn't necessarily qualify you for a job, may be a requirement to be considered for an interview, particularly your first, depending on how many applicants they have. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

We used to have problems, then started experiencing issues, now we are get opportunities. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Saying ping or pinging to refer to contact people. "Can I ping you after this meeting?" Paradigm Shift Touting "Business as Usual" during a reorg. Way to establish confidence in the new design. The New Normal Having Conversations or Having a Conversation. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

You do realize that they don't actually pay the CEOs this amount. Most of this is stock or stock options. Doing so gives the CEO a larger vested interest in company performance. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Doing okay. Less jumping recently, at least out of planes.

Be nice. I think she is a type of pelican. I bet when Asians see her they scream Godzillllaaa! Its Godzirrrrraaaa!!! If you're gonna be offensive, at least do it right.

Sure. Banks lend money to people. They choose whom to lend by credit scores and income because they want to only loan to people who wil pay them back. If they have concerns that a person may not pay them back (no credit, bad credit, or lower income) they charge a higher interest rate to compensate for that person defaulting on the loans. This can be done on smaller purchases such as cars, but harder to charge that level of interest on houses. The argument was "Houses appreciate in value, so a bank could loan to anyone and if they failed to pay, just foreclose on the house and resell it." Foreclosures are costly and take time. They are not measures taken to maintain profit or even break even. Banks determined that the risk of these loans was not worth the reward. * First the government offered to buy some of the loans to limit the bank's risk. * When positive reinforcement wasn't enough in came the lawsuits and other measures. Is this something you mostly just made up or did you get it from faux news? The voices contributed too... Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Sure. Banks lend money to people. They choose whom to lend by credit scores and income because they want to only loan to people who wil pay them back. If they have concerns that a person may not pay them back (no credit, bad credit, or lower income) they charge a higher interest rate to compensate for that person defaulting on the loans. This can be done on smaller purchases such as cars, but harder to charge that level of interest on houses. The argument was "Houses appreciate in value, so a bank could loan to anyone and if they failed to pay, just foreclose on the house and resell it." Foreclosures are costly and take time. They are not measures taken to maintain profit or even break even. Banks determined that the risk of these loans was not worth the reward. * First the government offered to buy some of the loans to limit the bank's risk. * When positive reinforcement wasn't enough in came the lawsuits and other measures. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

It doesn't matter how much money you have when there's credit available to anyone (NINJA mortgages). Throw in the government securing the losses... The housing bubble was caused by bad government policy and regulations which led to a worse idea that was unfortunately highly profitable in the short term so it spread. If it made economic sense to provide loans to people with lower income, no credit, or bad credit, why were banks sued/fined to provide more of them and the government securing the loans? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

#3 was the direct result of regulations requiring banks to provide mortgages to poor people. If they refused they were sued and/or fined. Add to that Fannie and Freddie would buy any mortgage a bank wrote.. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Intentional jokes that is That place has better jokes than here most days...

Those communities and farms were self sustaining and GASP! green. Power companies wanted to sell them power, but it wasn't profitable enough to build the infrastructure to support them. So they used their lobbyists to get the government to pay for it. Phone, cable, and high speed Internet companies have all used similar tactics.

While I respect your opinion, personally I find myself differing here. You're a better man than I. I laughed my ass off that. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

I fixed your statement to make it accurate. In an imperfectly informed society, such as the one in which we live, people sometimes walk away from transactions that are not of benefit to them, and sometimes they don't. Businesses have proven time and again that, given the opportunity to engage in a transaction that is beneficial only to them, they will do so. Sometimes, by the time the counter-parties become aware that the transaction is harmful to them, it's too late. One could argue the reason for this is too much trust in government laws and regulations and not enough "caveat emptor."

False again... See before the bill I didn't have to choose to go to the club, or pay a fine for NOT going to the club. That would imply that the club previously had no cover charge. It does now. That's not relevant, though. The same financial incentive to do a particular thing can be viewed as a financial penalty for not doing that thing. The debate over whether the individual mandate is a penalty for not buying insurance or a tax and tax credit for buying insurance is like arguing over whether a glass is half full or half empty. Both descriptions mean the same thing. So you see no difference in a disincentive from an incentive? You see no difference between punishment and reward? Still got that helmet for ya... Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

That doesn't really make sense to me. If tomorrow, McDonalds, Walmart, Target and UPS said - screw this, we're only paying $4 an hour for our non-managment employees, 3.2 million people aren't just gonna go on as if nothing changed. They would be screwed. It's not like they could all pack up and go find somewhere else to work. $4 an hour is $8320 a year gross @ 40 hours for 52 weeks. Consider for a minute trying to live on that much money. What you fail to realize is they're already screwed... We all are until individuals and governments learn to use credit responsibly. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

I have to disagree with you. In an informed society, people walk away from transactions that are not of benefit to them. That's the self stabilizing aspect you may be missing here. Those employees can always choose to walk away. It may take a lot of work to do so (i.e., bettering themselves so they don't need to work at minimum wage jobs), but the choice is still their choice. Agreed. In general, I agree with this, but it can be abused. Are you familiar with New York's "Scaffold Law"? http://www.scaffoldlaw.org/ Yes, people who are working to provide for their own families must vote out those politicians who take from them to give to those who don't work. You hear people talking about their "rights". A right deals with how your allowed to conduct yourself. As soon as it starts costing other people's money, it's a privilege. That privilege comes with constraints, i.e., you need to work. Granted, that statement can use refinement in some finer points, but it's a reasonable starting point for further discussion, IMO. You missed my point about an informed society. i.e. We don't live in one, people constantly act without the knowledge of what they are doing, if it's a good idea or bad. Many larger business dealings (like buying a house, car, etc) are so complex people can't wrap their heads around what is going on. You also seem not able to grasp the fact that, given no fair standards, jobs that pay appropriate wages will disappear. Without a minimum wage and with the level of unemployment we consistently have, wages will drive down in all lines of work, including educated "Bettered" jobs. Because employees will compete for them. Yeah I know, free market, but the problem is, the way the system is set up now, it will substantially destroy any hope for a reasonable life for most people, including you. (Unless of course your in the millionaires club already). The issue is not wages, but credit. Normally if wages go down, and a businesses costs go down, they can and have to lower prices so those now making less can still buy their products. Credit negates that. At this point, we could eliminate or double minimum wage and as long as there was still free flow of credit, it would not change things. We're no longer an informed society because we don't have to be. Consequences of bad decisions are negated by government and then complaints about the spiraling costs leads to more government control. When regulations violations are settled for a tiny percentage of the profits made by violating, more regulations are not the answer. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

They'd prefer to have individuals vs. a business as businesses use their size to get better rates/coverage. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

After the initial shock after hearing of the tragedy, the next thought was "Was it a 3D theatre?" "This seems so real..." Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

There's alot of bureaucracy in business too and appears to be getting worse. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Ugh. (Shake head) Only two choices: 1. Buy my helmet for $50. 2. Pay me $15 fine/penalty/tax to NOT buy it. There is no $30 helmet option. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

I've got a helmet I'll sell you for $50 or you can pay me a $15 for not buying it. You can call it a tax credit, an incentive, a fine, a penalty, whatever as long as I get at least $15 from you. I take PayPal.

You have to go to the club in exactly the same way that you have to live in the US. You can choose to leave, but that isn't a practical option for most people living here. If you do stay in the country, you have to pay a healthcare tax. If you buy a qualifying health insurance plan, then you receive a tax credit that offsets the healthcare tax. The club is not the US. The club is health insurance (not healthcare). I've got a helmet I'll sell you for $50 or you can pay me a $15 fine for not buying it. Only a few words changed on your above statement justifies this. If you do stay in the country, you have to pay a helmet tax. If you buy a qualifying helmet, then you receive a tax credit that offsets the helmet tax. So you can either pay me $50 and get a helmet or pay me $15 and get nothing. Either way money is coming out of your pocket regardless of if you even wanted to buy a helmet. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.