What Made you Smile/What Ticked you off Today?

[gtmtnbiker]

You can't spike the ball in front of an opponent. But seeing as team celebrations are all of a sudden being allowed as well, I'm not surprised.

It's borderline taunting. I think the ref is looking for "intent" and it seems that Gronk wasn't really aware that the other team was right next to him when he spiked the ball. There was no pointing by him at the other player or saying words. In other words, he didn't even look/acknowledge the other player. If he did that, then it would be a clear case of taunting.

[fastbilly1]

Steam sale and I promised myself to save my money...
Noticed that I still have $1.00 left on my account and bought BOD7 and Cthulu Saves the World!

Same, but I only have a penny in my Steam Wallet. I did put about $50 in my paypal account for just such an occasion...

[Luke]

Ticked: All unemployment benefits for many states are being cancelled in December. ALL.

So whether someone lost their job due to outsourcing or was fired because showing up to work drunk, it doesn't matter. Not a penny to either. Neither Obama nor Romney give two shits either.

So if you have a family member or friend who is out of work, come next year the shit is going to hit the fan, big time. I expect both petty and white collar crimes to soar through the roof, and this is not the direction we need to be heading in. People need assistance when looking for a job which should be limited, but cutting everyone off is a one way lane to disaster.

Isn't this exactly why we all pay taxes? House prices will plummet, people will be out of home, and it's only another sign that our economy isn't just bad, it is fucking tanking. Thieves, rapists, and murders will be living better lives in prison than some honest hard working people, and they'll still be funded at tax payer's expense.

I'm disgusted. How the fuck can Obamacare work if it forces people to pay for health insurance when people will have zero money?

[o.pwuaioc]

1. If people can't afford health care, there are discounts up to 100% for families and individuals to acquire it.

2. If you want to look to blame for canceling unemployment benefits, there's really only one of the two parties who are do not like the idea of a safety net. Hint: it's not the Democrats.

The Democrats may have a lot of faults, but it was Romney, not Obama, who labeled people getting unemployment don't take "personal responsibility" for themselves. It's the Republicans, not the Democrats, who want to kill the social safety net.

[Luke]

1. If people can't afford health care, there are discounts up to 100% for families and individuals to acquire it.

2. If you want to look to blame for canceling unemployment benefits, there's really only one of the two parties who are do not like the idea of a safety net. Hint: it's not the Democrats.

The Democrats may have a lot of faults, but it was Romney, not Obama, who labeled people getting unemployment don't take "personal responsibility" for themselves. It's the Republicans, not the Democrats, who want to kill the social safety net.

1) You are sure of that? If so, you do realize things will change right?

2) Veto power. Use it.
States involved are mostly Democratic states, so there is that as well.

I'm not labeling anyone as anything, and Romney isn't our President so he's not even in this discussion. This is going on under Obama's watch, and it's dumb dumb dumb.

[prfsnl_gmr]

Correct me if I am mistaken, but I think that you are referring to the effect of the "fiscal cliff" on unemployment benefits.

If so, I think that some context is appropriate. First, as part of the federal government's efforts to alleviate the effects of the economic downtown, Congress extended the amount of time that someone can collect unemployment benefits from 26 weeks to 99 weeks. This extension is supposed to be temporary, and the amount of time that someone is eligible for unemployment benefits should return to 26 weeks after economic conditions improve.

In 2011, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives manufactured a "debt-ceiling" crisis by refusing to authorize the amount of money that the federal government can borrow on the open-market. (Refusing to raise the debt ceiling would have triggered a government shut-down and very negatively impacted the fragile U.S. economy.) This completely manufactured crisis was averted when President Obama and the Democrats in the Senate agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone rather than just those who earn less than $250K per year. As part of the bargain, however, the House of Representatives was obligated to enact laws that would balance the federal government's budget before the end of 2012. Failure to do so would result in both the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and massive across-the-board spending cuts - including cuts to unemployment benefits.

To date, the House of Representatives - not surprisingly - has failed to formulate a plan to balance the federal government's budget. (The only serious plan, which was proposed by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, was rejected by both Democrats ("too many spending cuts; not enough new revenue") and Republicans ("not enough spending cuts; too many new taxes").) Accordingly, unless Congress takes action soon, the period of time that people are eligible for unemployment benefits will decrease from 99 weeks back to 26 weeks.

[dsheinem]

Ticked: All unemployment benefits for many states are being cancelled in December. ALL.

2) Veto power. Use it.

Educate yourself a bit, Luke:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/1 ... 76455.html

http://www.nelp.org/page/-/UI/2012/EUC_ ... df?nocdn=1

The December cutoff affects people who have already hit a certain limit for benefits, not anyone/everyone who becomes unemployed.

Furthermore, there's nothing here to "veto" - Congress is currently letting a law expire and not passing a new one to extend the benefits. That said, it is likely they will work out some zero-hour bargain...

EDIT: well put, prfsnl_gmr

[prfsnl_gmr]

1) You are sure of that? If so, you do realize things will change right?

2) Veto power. Use it.
States involved are mostly Democratic states, so there is that as well.

I'm not labeling anyone as anything, and Romney isn't our President so he's not even in this discussion. This is going on under Obama's watch, and it's dumb dumb dumb.

To respond to some of your questions:

(1) Here is an article that explains how the "health insurance penalty" works and the timeline for phasing it in:

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/how-mu ... acare-tax/

It is also important to remember that low-income, working families likely qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit

so, not acquiring health insurance is unlikley to cost them anything out-of-pocket. (It will, I anticipate, harm the maligned "Refund Anticipation Loan" industry, however.)

(2) Only action by Congress can prevent the nation from falling over the "fiscal cliff". The President cannot use his veto power to stop a law - particularly a law regarding the government's finances - from taking effect. Likewise, if the President had vetoed the bargain that ended the debt ceiling "crisis", it would have resulted in a government shut down - which would have been equally disastrous for the U.S. economy.

My two cents - for what they are worth...

The Republicans in the U.S. House of Representives behaved extremely irresponsibly when they manufactured the debt-ceiling crisis in 2011. They basically held a gun to the head of the U.S. economy and said, "Give us what we want, or we will pull the trigger." When the President and the Democrats in the Senate capitulated to the Republican's demands by extending the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250K annually (which, BTW, did not do much for either the economy or the deficit), both parties basically tied a time-bomb to the economy that is set to go off in early 2013.

Regardless, any mainstream economist will tell you that focusing on deficit reduction during an economic down turn is wrong. (Herbert Hoover tried it, and it did not go so well...) Governments should work to stimulate demand during a recession, and increased spending is the best way to stimulate demand in a productive manner. Moreover, even if a governemnt maintains the same level of spending during an recession, the deficit will increase due to decreased tax revenue. It may seem counterintuitve, but - ideally - governments should increase spending when tax revenue is low (i.e., during a recession) and work to reduce the national debt (i.e., reduce spending) when tax revenue is high (i.e., during a "boom").

Accordingly, it is apparent that the Republican party's focus on the national debt during the last few years has been motivated by the fact that a Democrat was elected President rather than a concern for the well-being of our economy. (In my lifetime, I have only seen Republicans concerned with the national debt when Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were President. Strangely, they paid no mind to the issue when Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, or George W. Bush were President...) I think that the Republican party - since Barack Obama's election in 2008 - has behaved very irresponsibly in a time of national economic crisis by stifling all serious attempts to repair our weak economy. They have played politics and pandered to their constituents - particularly those with the highest income levels - to the detriment of the nation during a time of economic crisis, and I simply cannot award that behavior with my vote.

EDIT: Thanks, DSH.

[Michi]

Excellent post

*claps*

[J T]

*also claps*