Liberal Forum

Cedarswamp » 22 Jul 2014 6:46 pm » wrote: It's part of the "acceptable plans" that every policy must comply with.

So if Hobby Lobby simply refused to provide any coverage at all, they could have avoided the Supreme Court until the mandate became enforced?

i view Hobby Lobby's appeal to the Supreme Court on the basis of a religious objection as being an acknowledgement of the employer mandate, on a whole, which gives me no hope that it will be overturned as I believe it should be.

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 6:52 pm » wrote:
What's wrong with this picture?

The ACA.

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 6:59 pm » wrote:
So if Hobby Lobby simply refused to provide any coverage at all, they could have avoided the Supreme Court until the mandate became enforced?

i view Hobby Lobby's appeal to the Supreme Court on the basis of a religious objection as being an acknowledgement of the employer mandate, on a whole, which gives me no hope that it will be overturned as I believe it should be.

Would you have preferred they end all coverage for their employees until the mandate kicked in? I have my doubts the mandate will ever kick in.

Cedarswamp » 22 Jul 2014 7:15 pm » wrote: Would you have preferred they end all coverage for their employees until the mandate kicked in? I have my doubts the mandate will ever kick in.

Of course. Nothing would make her happier than to see them forced into a disadvantage in the labor market based on their religious beliefs. It's what religious bigots do.

Endoscopy » 22 Jul 2014 11:16 am » wrote:
The word socialism is bandied abut with very unclear meaning.

Gosh - ya think?

You mean like when you bathroom funny boys call it socialism when obie puts a nickel into GM, and Capitalism when Singapore owns 30% of the means of production?

At the end of the say, son - after you jokes have been made to squirm for your persistent misuse of the word socialism and your persistent failure to comprehend that capitalist states are always welfare states - no exceptions, - the fact remains that state ownership of the means of production is socialism. Therefore, Singapore is CERTAINLY no less than 30% socialist - and it is THAT 30% which allows it to maintain low taxes by grossing 30% of GDP without dipping into anyone's pocket, and which allows it to set public policy by the weight of its market position rather than by legislation - giving it such a high rating from Heritage.

Cannonpointer » 22 Jul 2014 11:30 pm » wrote:
Singapore owns 30% of the means of production?

1. I understand you're talking about Temasek, but how did you come up with that number???
2. You realize the government of Singapore doesn't manage its day to day operations, unlike our own government's involvement in companies, right??? It's much like Statoil in that government gets its piece after all the bills are paid. It's a far cry from what you want it to be, PDVSA.

tharock220 » 22 Jul 2014 11:39 pm » wrote:
1. I understand you're talking about Temasek, but how did you come up with that number???
2. You realize the government of Singapore doesn't manage its day to day operations, unlike our own government's involvement in companies, right??? It's much like Statoil in that government gets its piece after all the bills are paid. It's a far cry from what you want it to be, PDVSA.

1. What number do you propose? I have done the work and presented it on this board. I have no time this second to either hunt for that or reproduce it - but what it your counter-proposition? I'm not a quibbler. Throw a number at the wall, for argument's sake.

2. Link? Our own government manages companies day to day operations?

Which companies?

Also, you don't get to decide what I want. I closely maintain that office, and respect your right to decide what you want. The government sets policy and Temasek carries it out - play My Little Pony with that fact to your precious little heart's content, young lady.

The definition of socialism does not change because you girls are instructed be Heritage to radically alter your definitions on the fly. You can worship at the memory hole, but I remain conscious. I won't pretend you are not changing your definitions because otherwise your claims against socialism are proved false.

Endoscopy » 21 Jul 2014 5:24 am » wrote: My my my. Such name calling and lying to boot. Ronald fixed the Carter stagflation and gave us a booming economy by reducing the overall taxes especially income tax.

To set the record straight there are currently 750,000 pages of regulations with a 1000 page index. Only a very big company can afford to hire enough lawyers to keep them in line with them. A small business has no hope. A government team of regulation specilaists could walk into any small business, investigate a little, and shut them down.

THE LAND OF THE FREE???

Carter inherited that stagflation from Nixon taking us off Bretton Woods - so there ya go. Reagan fixed Nixon's mess. Whatever, son. The FEDERAL RESERVE is the real culprit and both parties play ball.

I notice that regulation of corporations - which deal with chemicals and radio-active materials, which take a page or two to regulate, you pathetic hack - I notice THAT is what hits your freedom button, and not your neighbors being imprisoned at 4 times the rate of any other country. How sad that you are more concerned with the interests of the rich than of the poor, and will probably still **** up the name of Jesus by letting it come out of your anti-Christ face.

Cannonpointer » 22 Jul 2014 11:45 pm » wrote:
1. What number do you propose? I have done the work and presented it on this board. I have no time this second to either hunt for that or reproduce it - but what it your counter-proposition? I'm not a quibbler. Throw a number at the wall, for argument's sake.

All I'm asking is for your calculations man. You're a semi-intelligent person so I figured you could show me the arithmetic.

Cannonpointer » 22 Jul 2014 11:45 pm » wrote: 2. Link? Our own government manages companies day to day operations?

Which companies?

Also, you don't get to decide what I want. I closely maintain that office, and respect your right to decide what you want. The government sets policy and Temasek carries it out - play My Little Pony with that fact to your precious little heart's content, young lady.

The definition of socialism does not change because you girls are instructed be Heritage to radically alter your definitions on the fly. You can worship at the memory hole, but I remain conscious. I won't pretend you are not changing your definitions because otherwise your claims against socialism are proved false.

Wrong. The Singapore government does not manage Temasek. It simply owns it. I will concede that it is socialized, nationalized, or whatever, but the company manages its own affairs.

http://www.temasek.com.sg/abouttemasek/ ... governance

As an investment company, Temasek owns and manages its assets, investing and divesting with full commercial discretion and flexibility under the guidance of our Board, including investment, divestment and business decisions.

Our commitment to deliver long term value is supported by a philosophy and culture of ownership.

Under Singapore’s Constitution and laws, neither the President of the Republic of Singapore nor the Singapore Minister for Finance1
, our shareholder, is involved in our investment, divestment or other business decisions, except in relation to the protection of Temasek’s own past reserves.

tharock220 » 22 Jul 2014 11:53 pm » wrote:
All I'm asking is for your calculations man. You're a semi-intelligent person so I figured you could show me the arithmetic.


Wrong. The Singapore government does not manage Temasek. It simply owns it. I will concede that it is socialized, nationalized, or whatever, but the company manages its own affairs.

http://www.temasek.com.sg/abouttemasek/ ... governance

So they can run it into the ground and there is nothing the government can do to intervene?

That your final answer?

I will have to take this up later.

Cannonpointer » 22 Jul 2014 11:55 pm » wrote: So they can run it into the ground and there is nothing the government can do to intervene?

That your final answer?

I will have to take this up later.

An Investment Mandate from the Government to GIC sets out the terms of appointment, investment objectives, investment horizon, risk parameters and investment guidelines for managing the portfolio. The Government, which is represented by the Ministry of Finance in its dealings with GIC, neither directs nor interferes in the company's investment decisions. It holds the GIC Board accountable for the overall portfolio performance.

Board committees oversee critical areas including investment policy, processes, risk, audit, human resource and organizational development. External advisers with extensive experience serve on various committees to provide their perspectives and ideas.

The Auditor-General, who is appointed by the President of Singapore, submits an annual report to the President and Parliament on his audit of the Government and other bodies managing public funds.

Please see more information on corporate governance in the ‘Report on the Management of the Government’s Portfolio for the Year 2012/2013'.

http://www.gic.com.sg/en/about/corporat ... e/overview


http://www.gic.com.sg/en/about/board-of-directors

GeorgeWashington » 23 Jul 2014 12:01 am » wrote:
An Investment Mandate from the Government to GIC sets out the terms of appointment, investment objectives, investment horizon, risk parameters and investment guidelines for managing the portfolio. The Government, which is represented by the Ministry of Finance in its dealings with GIC, neither directs nor interferes in the company's investment decisions. It holds the GIC Board accountable for the overall portfolio performance.

Board committees oversee critical areas including investment policy, processes, risk, audit, human resource and organizational development. External advisers with extensive experience serve on various committees to provide their perspectives and ideas.

The Auditor-General, who is appointed by the President of Singapore, submits an annual report to the President and Parliament on his audit of the Government and other bodies managing public funds.

Please see more information on corporate governance in the ‘Report on the Management of the Government’s Portfolio for the Year 2012/2013'.

http://www.gic.com.sg/en/about/corporat ... e/overview

http://www.gic.com.sg/en/about/board-of-directors

Sounds to me like a privately owned company accountable to its shareholders like you see elsewhere in the world. The shareholders happen to be government here.

It's not what Cannon wants it to be: a pdvsa or gazprom which are wards of the state or personal piggy banks for foolish dictators. One of those foolish dictators allowed his pride to get the better of him, and instead of seeking cancer treatment in Houston at the best cancer hospital in the world he went to Cuba. He paid a heavy price for the stupidity, and his sooc isn't at their 1999 levels of oil production.

And it's definitely not a situation where government took control, forced it into bankruptcy, then used the bankruptcy court(also government) to give the company to political allies.

Cannonpointer » 22 Jul 2014 11:52 pm » wrote:Carter inherited that stagflation from Nixon taking us off Bretton Woods - so there ya go. Reagan fixed Nixon's mess. Whatever, son. The FEDERAL RESERVE is the real culprit and both parties play ball.

Yes, but no, Carter re-inflated the dollar after to some degree Ford stabilized it and the economy, so Carter deserves the blame for his own actions and the resulting problems.

And it began with LBJ, not Nixon, although he did worsen the problem.

Not to mention, inflating the dollar is "acceptable" if not recommended by liberal economists like Krugman, but opposed by Free Market supporters.

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 6:01 pm » wrote:If the employer mandate to provide employees health coverage is not yet in force, how are they mandated to cover abortifacients?

Sorry, but you're clearly wrong. Repetition isn't going to change that.
The Employer mandate has only been delayed for small to medium businesses, not for everyone.
Again, if you don't know what the law did, or how it's been modified by Obama, why are you here?

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 Jul 2014 6:52 pm » wrote:The problem with an employer mandate. Suddenly, all those providing it voluntarily are lost among those who are mandated to provide it. There doesn't appear to be any legal distinction between the two.

Before ACA, companies had the right to battle coverage items out with insurance companies. Now, they have to battle it out with the government. What's wrong with this picture?

Is she actually finally starting to see the light?
We explained this to you prior to Obamacare ever passing in 2009.
Prior to Bammycare, if you had an issue you attempted to resolve it with your insurance company and if you were unable to resolve it to your satisfaction you could retain a lawyer and sue. Now you can't do that. You are now at the mercy of the government and whatever they decide, you have to live with. Assuming of course you're allowed to live.
Remember the death panel issue? This was at the heart of it.

RichClem » 23 Jul 2014 7:07 am » wrote:
Yes, but no, Carter re-inflated the dollar after to some degree Ford stabilized it and the economy, so Carter deserves the blame for his own actions and the resulting problems.

And it began with LBJ, not Nixon, although he did worsen the problem.

Not to mention, inflating the dollar is "acceptable" if not recommended by liberal economists like Krugman, but opposed by Free Market supporters.

Agreed on Johnson - but so-called "free market supporters" - whatever you think that means - vote for and empower the type of people who triple our national debt, fight wars of choice off budget, give the world's most powerful communist nation unfettered access to the world's largest consumer market, those sorts of things.

I don't know what you think you mean when you say "free market." I go to the market regularly, and if I want so much as a packet of ketchup, I have to pay. It's not free.

If you are talking about capitalism, and trying to float the idea that capitalism should or even CAN exist unregulated, then let me educate you: The stock market attracts TRILLIONS of anonymous dollars, looking for improvement. The trust investors show is predicated on the fact that Wall Street exchanges are regulated by the government. Just imagine if it were NOT regulated by government. All that money, and no one watching...

But that's a fantasy. All that money simply would not be there, but for the government's licensing and regulating of the market. Free Enterprise works on Main Street, where businesses are closely held and principals are managing their OWN risks. But given that Wall Street actors have access to literally billions of anonymous dollars, they demand scrutiny. The actual owners of capitalist companies (share holders) have no legal right to give any orders, look over the books at a moment's notice, walk into the back office, demand answers from staff. They have zero day-to-day oversight. And every last person handling the money - right up to the CEO - is an EMPLOYEE. Employees tend to put their own interests above those of the companies they work for - yes, even CEOs. So the system is DESIGNED to rely on government oversight for credibility.

The problem today is that the oversight has been corrupted - hence the golden parachutes from nose-diving firms: unheard of before all of the deregulation that you assure us Reagan only falsely promised but did not deliver. CEOs are no longer remunerated based on anything RESEMBLING performance, and their interests are no longer cheek by jowl with their companies' interests. The company can go bankrupt while the CEO receives compensation far beyond contractual stipulations - compensation sufficient to make one comfortable for several lifetimes, in bonuses alone. Maybe this sad arrangement is what you mean by a "free market" - regulatory agencies in the pockets of bad actors, and CEOs acting more often as parasites than as shepherds and husbanders of companies' assets and future viability.

It becomes difficult to divine the meaning of words uttered by the types of fellows who change the definitions of terms willy nilly, to satisfy a partisan agenda. Just a few months back, Obie investing a relative pittance in G.M. was nothing less than full blown socialism. But when Heritage saw that Singapore, doing the same thing and more of it, had a wildly successful economy as a result - well. suddenly that practice became "capitalism." The meaning of socialism is - well, it depends on the thread, and often it changes several times even in a single conversation with you. You've gone with everything from declaring it has no precise meaning, to posting a definition which defined regulating the market as socialism. You're all over the board.

I have to assume that "free market" is an equally amorphous term, whose definition you will change to suit your argument of the moment. Why must you dissemble, and what do you hope to gain by it?

GeorgeWashington » 23 Jul 2014 12:01 am » wrote:
An Investment Mandate from the Government to GIC sets out the terms of appointment, investment objectives, investment horizon, risk parameters and investment guidelines for managing the portfolio. The Government, which is represented by the Ministry of Finance in its dealings with GIC, neither directs nor interferes in the company's investment decisions. It holds the GIC Board accountable for the overall portfolio performance.

Board committees oversee critical areas including investment policy, processes, risk, audit, human resource and organizational development. External advisers with extensive experience serve on various committees to provide their perspectives and ideas.

The Auditor-General, who is appointed by the President of Singapore, submits an annual report to the President and Parliament on his audit of the Government and other bodies managing public funds.

Please see more information on corporate governance in the ‘Report on the Management of the Government’s Portfolio for the Year 2012/2013'.

http://www.gic.com.sg/en/about/corporat ... e/overview

http://www.gic.com.sg/en/about/board-of-directors

This precisely proves my point. The Golden Rule is the one thing humans can count on forever: He who has the gold makes the rules - and Temasek follows those rules.

Who sets the investment objectives? Temasek? No - Temasek FOLLOWS those objectives. And the implicit pretense that phone calls are not made between political power brokers and the decision makers at Temasek simply ignores the nature of nature - a conjobby thing to do. Does anyone think the PM is powerless to get his nephew a job at Temasek? Gimme a break! Or that the PM could never edge the company this way or that, for either his own or his nation's interests?

Regardless, the situation described above is government ownership of the means of production - socialism, until the Heritage Dictionary - not yet published but fully binding on conjobs - changed the meaning of the word to....

Depends on the thread, the day, the argument, the conjob...

Cannonpointer » 23 Jul 2014 9:53 am » wrote: Agreed on Johnson - but so-called "free market supporters" - whatever you think that means - vote for and empower the type of people who triple our national debt, fight wars of choice off budget, give the world's most powerful communist nation unfettered access to the world's largest consumer market, those sorts of things.

WTF? The topic is Economics, but you start bleating about foreign policy.

China is not Communist. If it were, it wouldn't have a powerful, strongly growing economy.

That is a literal impossibility.

And we don't "give" them anything.

Reagan didn't triple the national debt. No one tripled the national debt, because factoring inflation, it increased far less than you claim.

And not that you'll acknowledge the accepted facts, Reagan was on the side of spending restraint, putting aside his vital military buildup.

He even allowed the government to be shut down at least once to fight Dems' overspending.

I don't know what you think you mean when you say "free market." I go to the market regularly, and if I want so much as a packet of ketchup, I have to pay. It's not free.

Oh, that's so clever!

Are you coerced by federal law to buy it? To buy a particular brand? Does the government control the ketchup maker?

No? Then the product is produced by relatively free market forces.

If you are talking about capitalism, and trying to float the idea that capitalism should or even CAN exist unregulated, then let me educate you: The stock market attracts TRILLIONS of anonymous dollars, looking for improvement. The trust investors show is predicated on the fact that Wall Street exchanges are regulated by the government. Just imagine if it were NOT regulated by government. All that money, and no one watching...

Did regulators catch Bernie Madoff?

Did regulators prevent abusive lending by Fannie Mae, perhaps the most regulated body in the US? No, it was perhaps the only institution not covered by Dodd-Frank.

Did regulators prevent Enron?

No, because they're incapable of doing so generally, but they do heap abuse on innocent parties and put huge costs on most everyone else.
On balance, they do more damage than good.

The meaning of socialism is - well, it depends on the thread, and often it changes several times even in a single conversation with you. You've gone with everything from declaring it has no precise meaning, to posting a definition which defined regulating the market as socialism. You're all over the board.

That's a complete and utter lie. I use two definitions of Socialism. You refuse to accept one, in typical dishonest troll fashion.

Why must you dissemble, and what do you hope to gain by it?

Can anyone spell "I-R-O-N-Y?"

And Reaan was onthe side of spending

You're a psychotic liar.

Even liberal historians have written otherwise.

tharock220 » 23 Jul 2014 12:07 am » wrote:
Sounds to me like a privately owned company accountable to its shareholders like you see elsewhere in the world. The shareholders happen to be government here.

It's not what Cannon wants it to be: a pdvsa or gazprom which are wards of the state or personal piggy banks for foolish dictators. One of those foolish dictators allowed his pride to get the better of him, and instead of seeking cancer treatment in Houston at the best cancer hospital in the world he went to Cuba. He paid a heavy price for the stupidity, and his sooc isn't at their 1999 levels of oil production.

You said "shareholders," which of course you know to be a lie. There is only one "shareholder:" the government of Singapore. Government ownership of the means of production WAS socialism, before you came out, son.

And you don't get to say what I want - unless you agree that I get to say what you want (which will be anonymous bathroom cock, of course).

What have we learned? We have learned that your definition of socialism is a crowd-sourced, partisan, go-along-get-along definition. A conjob definition. A definition handed to you at the memory hole, where you made a burnt offering of your PREVIOUS definition of that word to your one true god - repuke ideology.

What must it be like, I wonder, to come on this board and feel a need to pretend that government ownership of the means of production is not socialism, so long as it is formatted in a manner pleasing to Heritage (whose pleasure would be to call Singapore socialist, but for its economic success)?

What IS that like, for you? It's not as if we do not BOTH know that Obama investing in GM equaled socialism, NOTWITHSTANDING NO DAY TO DAY OVERSIGHT - SIMPLY SHAREHOLDER STATUS (and not even the only shareholder). We BOTH know that you call it socialism when it suits youHeritage, and capitalism when it suits you Heritage. That's zero integrity, bub. That's a wiggling, niggling little fellow, is what that is.