[ucodegen]

[quote=spdrun]And if someone splits past you at 20-30 mph, guess what? You’re not a cop. Unless he’s pulling wheelies and riding like a squid, he’s probably just trying to get somewhere.[/quote]Maybe so, but if a cop sees it, it is a ticket. That aspect of the law is for the Bikers own safety. While bikes can accelerate, brake and turn quickly, they are very slow in transient maneuvers. If they have to do a sudden turn to avoid something, bikes are slow. They have to lean first. Cars, on the otherhand, are very quick on transient maneuvers – no leaning needed. Imagine splitting between two cars that don’t see each other as one tries to maneuver into the others lane… and you are trying to split between them. At 15mph, you barely have time to react. Beyond that, a biker may end up being roadkill between two 3000lb objects.

[ucodegen]

[quote=FlyerInHi]I have been in cars where the driver get enraged and starts yelling because a biker splits traffic and zooms by. Guess what? The biker is allowed to do that.[/quote] Only up to 15mph! Beyond that, it is a ticket!

[ucodegen]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
Yes the bikers are asses. But Lien likely did something to antagonize them. Lien probably felt big in his SUV and bumped into one of them.

Let the crazies pass. No need to get riled up because the other guys might get angrier than you.[/quote]Or they might drive a bigger vehicle than you! Going after a Range Rover with a Motorcycle is dumb. He just wanted to get away. If Lien wanted to do damage, he could have floored it in reverse right after getting through the group and end up getting the rest of them. The bikes were trapped between guardrails.

BTW, if you look at the video from the bike rider, you can see the biker in the right drive right up to the Range Rover’s driver side door while driving down the highway.. even crowding the Range Rover by driving parallel into the Range Rover’s lane (reckless driving, illegal lane change, reckless endangerment). The biker than runs drives up in front of the Range Rover and hits the brakes (not a brakecheck because he goes hard to full stop) (obstruction of traffic leading to an accident, reckless driving leading to injury). Look them up!

Some motorcycle drivers feel invincible because they are wearing heavy leathers and helmets and ride something that cops have a problem catching in a chase. While it protects them against road rash and physical beat downs, it will not protect you against collision with something that weighs more than 10x what the biker weights.

NOTE: If the bikers were really worried about the Range Rover, they could have just taken down the license plate and then gunned it. Just call Highway Patrol. I doubt that the Range Rover could out accelerate most of those bikes.

Thanks for the video link.. I had already captured it, but didn’t save the link.

Timestamp: 0:18 – biker in white w/ black vest looks at Range Rover and cuts right into his lane while being parallel. He is next to the drivers side door. This is the time he cuts into Liens lane.
Timestamp: 0:19 – Better view of biker in white right next to drivers side door. Driver of Range Rover trying to give him room.
Timestamp: 0:24 – Biker in white with black vest cuts in front of Range Rover.
Timestamp: 0:25 – Biker in white with black vest hits brake knowing that he would cause a problem – he is looking back as he hits the brakes in front of the Range Rover.
Timestamp: 0:30 – Biker is white is still up and rolling. He was not hit nor run-over at this point.

I am usually quite civil, but I have to make an exception here. You, FlyerInHi, are a freaking idiot! I put just some of the VC violations of the bikers up here. Also note that the Biker in white with the black vest is running without plates. I wonder why? There is a good shot of the back of the bike at 0:26 – no plates.

[ucodegen]

[quote=spdrun]50% truth, 50% sensationalism, as usual.

To be clear, the salaries are high as compared to the other employees. But … the people in question are the property manager, two electricians, and two carpenters. They’re likely more like department heads than the people who move props around a stage when the lights go out. Combination of a skilled manager and a skilled tradesman who has the skill to deal with creatives and a lot of expensive equipment isn’t easy to find…

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2013/10/carnegie_hall_strike_stagehand_salaries.php%5B/quote%5D
This is more than most plumbers, carpenters, electricians make even when they have their own business. Don’t give me the skilled manager/skilled tradesmen crap.

[ucodegen]

[quote=jeff303]Why are we to assume “intentional misinformation” is more likely than the stated reason (communication error)?[/quote] Because web server metric systems give an accurate account. It would be the number of unique cookies. It is very hard to ‘miscommunicate’ a number that a computer prints out. There has also been a lot of money spent to make tracking of web visits accurate. For many other sites, it is important financially. A ‘computer glitch’ is very unlikely in terms of tracking.

Why does intentional misinformation seem to be the norm.

The mind-think that the ends justify the means.

[ucodegen]

[quote=no_such_reality]The underlying systemic issue is what is causing our prior model to break. We’re not a heartless nation saying just let people die, so we EMTALA. EMTALA results in 80% of ER visits being uninsured. The ER is one of the LEAST cost effective points for treating people.

….

IMO, the biggest savings of ACA will be driven by taking a large subset of the 40+ million uninsured and moving them from expensive, too little too late treatment in the ER, to less expensive, more preventative treatment up stream.[/quote]The problem is that many of the people who use the ER in this manner are illegal aliens. Mexico does have medical insurance, but it is tiered based upon how much you pay. If a US citizen goes to the ER for treatment, the bill collectors will hound them. They can’t hound an illegal. No SSN, no TIN. nada, nothing. Because of their status, they are harder to track and make pay into the system, or pay for costs they incur. Because of their status, most of them have advanced health problems. Because they are often the lower strata of Mexican society, they also have health problems from poor nutrition.

Take a look at the following:
Illegal immigration by state:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2013/02/map_illegal_immigrant_population_by_state.html

Hospital costs by state:
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/health/average-medical-hospital-costs-by-state-map.html

Putting the graphs side by side is revealing. It correlates quite well, allowing for small statistical variations.

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2008/04/20/organ_transplants_for_immigrants_stir_debate_in_calif/

It is also more likely that illegal aliens have Hepatitis, due to lower quality food and water supplys.

Obamacare does not help with this issue.

NOTE: On a final note, I suspect that hospitals also overplay the ‘uninsured’ count to try to give themselves more money.

[ucodegen]

[quote=SK in CV]That’s really a bunch of garbage. There was real discussion, for months and months. I read two different versions of the entire bill, plus the final bill before it was passed. Anyone who claims that there wasn’t real debate on the issues simply wasn’t paying attention. In fact, it was debated pretty heatedly here.[/quote]But also note, that the passing of Obamacare cost the Democrats some of their House seats. In a change of opinion, or party vote, the House shows it first. Obamacare was never the 100% everybody for it shoe in that the media sometimes tries to portray it at. It got through House and Senate, largely on party-line votes.. now the other party gets its say… maybe because people responded to Obamacare by voting for more Republicans this time (swing voters).

While it is called “Affordable Health Care Act”, it does nothing to control costs. Instead it mandates paying a middleman, who takes their cut (see loss ratio for Insurance companies). The middleman happens to be Insurance companies, which oddly are partially responsible for Credit Default Swaps and their use (though not all involved in Health Insurance inhaled that stuff). It even taxes medical device manufacturers, who have to put up with a significant risk when inventing new devices, medical sensing equipment etc. How is taxing these industries cutting costs? How are you going to insure that this middle man has your interests at heart? Yet more laws? Another Insurance Commissioner (happened with auto insurance. Mandating auto insurance was supposed to reduce those costs, but it didn’t).. ie Heath Insurance Commissioner? How do we insure that he really works for us is not operating a Goldman style revolving door? Is it all supposed to magically work because the idea of affordable Health Care sounds good?

How about something useful.. how about all Hospitals have to publish their Chargemasters…. now that is transparency!
Lets start some competition between the Hospitals. Simple, but the powers that be don’t want something so simple and that will work.

[ucodegen]

[quote=CA renter]Half of the population has an IQ under 100. I do not think that DIY investing is going to work out for the long-term for most people, whether or not they are blessed enough to be born with a greater intellect. Centrally-managed retirement funds do work when they are managed conservatively and transparently. I’ll be the first to admit that this is not the case at many public pension funds, but that can be changed if there is enough political will.[/quote]This is why I believe in giving people the option to go it alone if they wish.. or a percentage of managed and self directed. If a fund manager manages to consistently out perform me.. I’ll let him invest my funds, otherwise I’ll do it. I’ll also let those I know, who might not be as good at investing, that they may want to look for another manager.

[quote=CA renter]Transparency and accountability are imperative in all markets, public and private, IMHO. If we make the system transparent enough, and if we hold people accountable, it can absolutely work.[/quote]
True, but it is an impossible goal to achieve absolutely, this is not to say you can get close. After all, you need one of those ‘specialists’ to be able to understand what they are seeing under that transparency and to tell if it is truly transparant. The problem is that firms hire specialists that don’t spill the beans and pay them handsomely. This creates a disincentive. One way to tell is by comparing performance. If I am consistently outperforming a fund as a ‘part-timer’.. there may be something up. I always believe in giving people the option of choice. Lock-in always prevents transparency and accountability. All that the fund managers have to do is compromise audit and enforcement. It does happen and more than many people know. If a person has choice.. they can always ‘leave’ the fund that is not being transparent and if that happens in droves, it starves the fund, effectively becoming its own form of enforcement.

[ucodegen]

[quote=The-Shoveler]We can go round and round but there are quite a few much smarter than I who think this is pretty clear.

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”[/quote]Who? The debt still stands..

That said, if it is valid.. could be that Obama does not want to raise it because the debt limit increase would be on his hands. Interesting conundrum that the media is not doing a very good job of picking up.

On Friday, Mr. Obama rejected the idea, though not in categorical terms.

“I have talked to my lawyers,” Mr. Obama said. “They are not persuaded that that is a winning argument.”

[ucodegen]

[quote=CA renter]Without the government either acting directly or indirectly, as they did after the Northridge earthquake, there would be no middle class, and (IMHO) we would not have experienced the social and economic successes that we’ve seen in this country’s history.[/quote]Huh? does not follow. Statement is not supported by facts. Remember that the government is allowing Hedge Fund managers to pay a much lower tax rate than people who work for money. Hedge Fund managers get to pay at capital gains rates and not at income rates even though they are paid based upon work and not based upon amount that they have personally invested (amount of capital at risk).

[quote=CA renter]We need to go back to 100% in-house management with NO outside advisors. Anyone found guilty of fraud or corruption, either inside or outside of the institution, should personally lose EVERYTHING and face a very stiff prison sentence.[/quote]How would you know that in-house advisers were being as responsible as they could? How do you prove it? It sounds good, but having dealt with some ‘insider’ behavior, prosecution and proving it is harder to do than say. There are many funds that are well managed with low load fees. Why duplicate the effort. I would want to allow people to select the investments themselves as a potential option. The part I worry about in ‘assigned’ handlers of 401Ks, is potential insider dealing between the employer and paid servicer, as well as an employer who really doesn’t push the 401K servicer to put reasonable funds (and not their junk funds) into the 401K selection.

[quote=livinincali]Why don’t we just eliminate the middle man completely and just give employees a defined contribution that they are free to invest how they wish. We immediately eliminate all the problems associated with a defined benefit plan.[/quote] What I was trying to say in many more words…

Sometimes to get it done right.. you have to do it yourself.

[ucodegen]

[quote=The-Shoveler]Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment gives the president the power to bypass Congress and raise the debt ceiling by executive order.[/quote]
I don’t think that is quite accurate. The Wiki (such as Wikipedia is) quote is:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

It doesn’t mention anything about funding/paying the debt. It just goes to validity and about not reimbursing insurrection against the US.

[ucodegen]

[quote=CA renter]Firstly, the private sector is 100% dependent on the government. Who do you think provides the social, legal, military, and physical infrastructure that private sector depends on?[/quote]I think you are reaching a bit here. We have seen where the private sector provides some of this, and it works. During the Northridge quake, the repairs were from the private sector and private sector contracts. Just because government is the most effective source for some things, does not make it the effective source for all things. Yes, government funded the contracts.. but we fund the government. For some things, it is the most effective.. but not all.

PS: By the way, the borrowings of congress from the Social Security fund, pay into the fund at a rate of 5% interest. Without that interest, the Social Security fund will have been depleted a long time ago.

[ucodegen]

[quote=CA renter][quote=ucodegen]
The best way to get it out of the hands of those who have a greater impetus to fudge the numbers and contributions than to be up honest.. is to get it immediately out of their hands on every pay period. They really don’t face any consequences to their ‘fudging’.. but the employee does.

[/quote]

The best way to get it out of the hands of those who have a greater impetus to cause damage to public pensions is to keep Wall Street and other *private sector* influences out of public pension funds.[/quote]Sounds good. Implementation is the problem. How do you expect to have return on invested funds, at least enough to offset inflation. Bonds? gotta go to Wall Street, Stocks.. likewise. Any time you have to ‘invest’, particularly large sums, you have to go to Wall Street. All that you have to do is do it in a way that is both transparent, does not ‘trust’ Wall Street, and prevents them from having control of the account.

[ucodegen]

[quote=CDMA ENG][quote=ucodegen]What I find annoying is that these same teachers, etc want the pensions instead of having the money go to their own 401Ks.. that they control. (use low fee index funds)

The taxpayers end up paying for this though, because the pensions are a form of ‘defined’ benefit, and the taxpayers have to close the gap.[/quote]

As much as I hate to sound like a union pension advocate the simple truth is that most major companies can borrow against your 401K as well. I am not sure of all the details but someone always has access to your money.

CE[/quote]
No they can not. They have a fiduciary requirement. They have absolutely no access to that money. I got one HR person in trouble when they transferred my 401K w/o my permission when I was transferring from one company to another company which was held by a third parent company. My plan was to roll that money out on leaving the first company.. which I legally could.

[quote=CA renter]If you study the history of these public pension funds, you’ll see that they originally invested only in VERY safe Treasuries (typically the largest allocation) and highly-rated bonds. It was the lobbying done by Wall Street that enabled the funds to put more and more of the pension money into riskier and riskier assets. It was the PRIVATE sector (the financial industry) that wrecked the pensions, not teachers, firefighters, cops, etc.[/quote]
The best way to get it out of the hands of those who have a greater impetus to fudge the numbers and contributions than to be up honest.. is to get it immediately out of their hands on every pay period. They really don’t face any consequences to their ‘fudging’.. but the employee does.

[quote=jeff303][quote=ucodegen]What I find annoying is that these same teachers, etc want the pensions instead of having the money go to their own 401Ks.. that they control. (use low fee index funds)[/quote]

Not all employer plans offer access to such funds. Often times, one’s portfolio options aren’t very good.[/quote]
True. One fix is for the employees to become activist in this respect. Some don’t want to rock the boat.. me.. I’ll overturn it if I have to, in order to set it right. This occurred at one company I worked at. Enough employees got ‘activist’ enough to cause the company and the 401K management firm to update their offerings.

The other is to start requiring companies to do direct 401k transfers to investment companies of the employees choice. The ‘real’ cost of transferring the money is insignificant. All of the detail movements are just electronic bookkeeping, with the sum of changes involving actual transfer of money.

[ucodegen]

What I find annoying is that these same teachers, etc want the pensions instead of having the money go to their own 401Ks.. that they control. (use low fee index funds)

The taxpayers end up paying for this though, because the pensions are a form of ‘defined’ benefit, and the taxpayers have to close the gap.

[Author]

Posts