If somebody says - 'what is your annual salary?' and you your salary is 60k a year you don't say 'Umm, 15k, because it's March, and if I quit today that's all I will get paid.'
You can't say 'ignore the $9 million, and he really only made 4.4 million' and then follow it up with 'well, if he quit his job would he still be paid in full?' as if it's some kind of revelation that in fact if you quit you don't get the full payment you would if you kept working.
Umm, saying "He was not paid 13.5, if you exclude around $9 million of his pay he was actually only paid $4.4 million" is quite a torturing of the meaning of words. How about we just say 'If you exclude $13.5 million of his pay then he actually wasn't paid anything this year! What a bargain, he worked for free!'
Have you never heard of term limits? You can't vote for Obama again. Now, Hillary is a different matter. If the GOP puts up anybody other than Rand Paul or Huntsman (only two Republicans that I'd ever consider supporting) Hillary will definitely be the easy choice to make.
Honestly, if I went somewhere, ran by anyone for any reason (religion or otherwise) that didn't want me there, and the only thing that was making them provide food to me was fear of a lawsuit would you REALLY want to eat there still? Personally, if I'm eating something, I want to know the person who made it likes me, or at the minimum is indifferent about me. I would really prefer to not eat something made by someone who actively does not like me.
You have an...interesting...interpretation of the phrase 'I don't know'. I didn't disagree - I said I don't know. That mean he could be right, or not, I don't know. That's what the phrase typically means.
You know what - honestly, I don't know if global warming is caused by humans or is something that would happen even without us here. What I *DO* care about though is that high levels of air pollution happen to be detrimental to us, humans. The higher the level of PM 2.5 the more it affects us, and if everybody is given free reign to do whatever they want you end up with China levels of pollution (and that's not good for even the healthiest of people).
I'm a Democrat, and a liberal and yet I'm not against that law. You automatically insult people which puts them on the defensive rather than explain. The bill does NOT say it's ok to discriminate who you do business with, it says it's ok to discriminate what you do for your business. In other words - you're a deeply religious photographer. If somebody wants you to take some photos of some glossy apples the law doesn't say a thing about you being able to refuse doing that for someone based on their orientation. What the law does say is if you're a photographer you have a right to take photos of glossy apples for one person, and turn down another person for wanting you to take explicit photos you don't think should be done. It sounds like a law that should be commonsense (your ability to decide what you are willing to do or not do - not who you do it for, but what you're willing to do).
You can also go to Wolfram Alpha and ask it 'what was the market cap of ETFC in 2000' (for example) and it'll show you a chart from 2000 to now.
AMTD ended up being 2.43% and SCHW was up 2.63%. ETFC has always swung just a little more than the other two, so it makes sense for us to be up 3.3% if their competitors are up nearly that much as well. (the downside being if they have a downturn ETFC usually goes down more than they do)
It's more about how many people and shares changed hands at the higher price. The daily volume ended up being closer to 2X the normal daily volume.
That seems practically illegal. I'm sure being a Congressman means nothing will come of it legally, but you can be sure if things were reversed and somebody came up to HIM, got right in his face and said they were going to throw him over they would almost certainly be locked up for the threat. It'd be a different matter altogether if it was 'HAHAHA! I should throw you over for that one!', but that's not what he did - he went really close to the reporter, leaned over him, and said with complete seriousness that he would do it.
I looked that up, and the only thing I saw about health insurance (on pages 4 and 5) was the section on HSA accounts that says "Contributions made by your employer are not included in your income. Distributions from your HSA that are used to pay for qualified medical expenses are not included in your income. Distributions not used for qualified medical expenses are included in your income.' That sounds fair to me though - if you're just withdrawing the money and not spending it on healthcare it really is just income at that point isn't it? If you're spending it on medical procedures though then it's not considered income, and not taxed as income.
Yeah, there's a lot of things people can easily find out including that one - but the sad truth of the matter is they just don't go out of their way to find it out. It's like my new policy I got this January - I looked at all the plans, I saw several that looked at first glance to be identical (same deductible/out of pocket/insurance company) but they ranged in price from ~$150 to ~$280. Now - I'm the type of person who thinks 'There HAS to be some reason for the price difference.' and I looked and looked until I found it. Then I went for the $280 option. MOST people though probably go for the cheapest and it never occurs to them why it's cheaper until they go to use it. (It was the network that made the difference - the cheapest one for example only covered a few places, while the most expensive one covered pretty much every hospital and doctor's office near me.)
I would agree with that. I used to have one of the best plans I could get as a self-employed person a few years ago. It had a $2,500 deductible, and uncapped out of pocket maximum cost sharing before the healthcare law passed. (The insurance companies knew on the individual market you were at the whim of the insurance company - so they dictated whatever terms they wanted.) I got sick one year, and had $7,000 in expenses that I had to pay. Meanwhile, a neighbor complained to me about his emergency room bill, he said "$100? They just gave me a shot for an allergic reaction and nothing else!" I asked him - 'Wow, that's incredible low actually. How much do you pay for insurance?' His response? 'I don't know.' People who get employer provided health insurance really have NO CLUE what it's like for everybody out there looking on the individual market. (self employed, small business)
Wait...I'm confused here. Jeanof9: Aren't you a liberal? I thought you were slamming Fox News with the article you just posted that talks about them using 'liberal outage as a crutch, often with dangerous results' and 'Fox News needs to figure out how to attract younger audiences'. Your insults towards the other guy seems to indicate you'd be right in Fox New's current target demographic - so why are you insulting them? Surely you didn't think those were meant as positive attributes in the article you posted?
Quick question: Why did any of the three of us get 14+ downvotes? It isn't like any of us said anything particularly offensive, or anything particularly divisive. Nothing pro or anti any particular party. Has to be one person with multiple accounts right? So, why is it that important to some guy out there to downvote this particular conversation that holds no importance at all?
Actually, even the guy who helped WRITE the law has said the hospital is misinterpreting it. You can't withhold life-sustaining treatment from a pregnant patient the law says - this woman is, under Texas law, already legally dead. When you're dead, you're no longer a patient. Or to put it in his own words, here's the quote from the guy who helped write the law:
“This patient is neither terminally nor irreversibly ill,” said Dr. Robert Fine, clinical director of the office of clinical ethics and palliative care for Baylor Health Care System. “Under Texas law, this patient is legally dead.”
I'd be surprised if Hillary actually wants to be President still. Secretary of State was kind of a preview of what it's like to be President - there's a reason everybody comes out of the Presidency looking 30 years older. After experiencing that herself I don't see her wanting to be President. You don't do it for the money (if you can win then you've already got the connections to make a lot more at far easier jobs), it isn't like you're appreciated for doing it, and with the stalemate between the two parties it isn't like you can really get that much done.
So far even the guy who helped write the law in Texas has said the hospital seems to be misinterpreting it (on purpose or not, who knows) The only people who thought it was a good idea to keep her on life support seem to be the hospital administrator, and a few protesters outside. If a Congressional member chips in it'll solely be for political points with a certain base, and I don't see them in any real way trying to get the judge's decision overturned.