kelpdiver

Not compared to even a mediocre CEO of any company in the Fortune 1,000. Considering the budgets and responsibility to make the correct decisions, no, the pay IS lousy even if you look at it over the amount a person makes after leaving the office. A retired President works a hell of a lot less than any Fortune 1000 CEO. And cannot be fired. He garnered 75M in his first decade of retirement. Your article, btw, only talks about outliers, not what "any Fortune 1000 CEO" did.

and stupid in the way that youth tend to be. Had they noted at all the way that crimes committed with toy guns or fake drugs are treated (as if the real thing), they would have acted differently. So will they get charged as adults, or just be tossed in juvie until they're 18 and released with a clean record?

looks like the size of the group plan (tiny) was a key factor, along with the change to the max benefit amount. These can cause substantial changes in rates. The mandate that these youth can stay on their parents' plan till 26 mitigates a lot of this concern, but does harm those who parents cannot provide this access.

The state puts in 348, the city 150. 498M. As I wrote, the battle for discretionary income is a zero sum game. A billion spent in road construction (fix bridges, potholes, traffic) would deliver the same jobs but much more benefit. Just consider the spending on car repairs due to poor roads, or the economic losses due to traffic. If these benefits exist as you say, they would be measurable and proveable and thus far the opposite has been established.

the pay is fantastic...when you factor in the after years. Clinton is printing money. Bush II isn't to nearly the degree, but we can agree that's more about him than the power of the presidency.

how much revenue? a few hundred thousand or a million, at a cost of half a billion? That's municipal math there. Employment, otoh, still falls under the displacement discussion. These people could be selling hot dogs at this stadium, or at a concession at the alternative activities people would be doing instead.

The "Personal Lifestyle Statement" requires employees to reject homosexuality, premarital sex, adultery, drug use and public drinking near campus. It also mandates that staff be active in a local church. Whole bunch of problems in this one for people. Though it looks like rock n roll is still permitted.

The numbers say that he has 294 EC votes to Romney's 170, with the rest as toss ups. Doesn't guarantee a win, but state by state numbers are much more meaningful that see a battle of the California/New York v Texas poll ballot stuffings.

again, I ask, what property taxes are you talking about? Publicly owned properties don't pay taxes...what would be the point?

Worked for Obama Obama had a clear and fairly consistent platform in his campaign. The flip flopping back to Bush positions didn't really happen until after he became President.

Considering some of the eye-squinting massacres of the language(s) we see here, I was willing to let that one go. just due to its usage/definition, grandeur is a particularly poor word to misspell. Falls right behind grammar!

for the guys (male) that insist that this is nothing like racism, yet cannot actually articulate it any more than "how dare you compare it,"... why is sexism less offensive than racism? Are women less deserving of fair treatment?

I live in San Francisco, ffs. Don't try to lecture me on the realities of this non existent boogeyman. If it existed, this is the fucking nexus point. The girl did not attend the religious school that claimed God wouldn't allow them to play vs girls. She attended the other one. Fail. You mean to say there are other opinions being hurled here. Your opinion is in no way reality.

probably shouldn't hurl out stones of your own, first, then. You lead the charge to idiocy. BTW, have you looked at the state by state polling? It sits at Obama 294, Romney 170, and the rest in play. Certainly not decided, but it's a long way for the Gumby candidate to go. Since even he doesn't know what he stands for, his campaign will all be about "not that guy."

waiting for an opposing team to forfeit rather than play the boy. This district appears to have a process for determination. It may be an subjective one, but it wasn't made by a single or tiny group.

it's hard to label Obama that title, but not Romney, who doesn't even pretend to have another job right now.

This comes up in the areas that have been doing prostitution stings. They try to keep the cars of the Johns, even if that person isn't the owner. Grandma gets pissed!

you are aware that states are unequal in size, right? California and Texas equals most of the other Western states. That said, voting speaks louder than polling. While California may poll majority in favor, the last election with Prop 8 showed support at just less than 50%.

That would be my point, but I was asking him to clarify his position which is that they are in fact positive investments. That would preclude multiplier effects. Nothing says that spending = new business. The amount of business around the game is a pretty number...the problem is in how much of it is NEW business rather than merely dollars displaced from elsewhere. Which brings us back to basic economics. Having an NFL team doesn't change the disposable income of the residents. If I spend $420 on season tickets for the Cal Bears as I have this season, that's money that won't be spent on the Giants, or on weekend races. It also takes away 10+ Saturdays where I might do a number of things with other vendors.

So that begs two questions 1) would you support Pious X for refusing to play against a team because it has black players? 2) would you prevent your child from being on a team that won't play against a team because it has girls on it? the marked (more than nearly any other physical attribute) difference in jumping ability between the genders will probably keep these as single gender team sports for a long time.

So, they fucked up on the deal. That doesn't invalidate the concept. what's the concept? That public investment in these types of arrangements pay off? I believe there are more loss events like this than the fantasy of the profitable investment. Given the unequal plane of the negotiations between cities and team owners, this shouldn't be a surprise.

I asked because the younger you are, the less the perspective on the reasons why America is widening. There have been more than a few discussion. However, you've merged two issues here - Americans' fitness and health care costs. The threat to our sports of choice are more in the second category. Doing nothing, which seems to be your proposal, is not a sound one for the future of our nation. Did you sign on to promote the decline of America? There are in fact solutions that may not cross your notions of freedom.

for many, yes, that would fix the problem. But to others, it's still a case of "separate but equal." There are churches that will marry people of the same sex and there's still no justification to insist that they can only be a civil union.

You can take racism out of your argument. It doesn't apply here and it's all to obvious that you are playing to emotion as opposed to intellect. Are you sure that 60% of this school's enrollment are women? No? Then national averages, if that's what you mean, doesn't apply here. It's exactly the same thing. They wouldn't play because their (fucked up) beliefs make it wrong to play against a girl. Which is no different than refusing to play a team that has a black. We saw decades of the latter. The former is more rare for a variety of reasons. (will elaborate below) I clearly stated that college overall is 60% women. Now perhaps these boys will continue to hide from the real world and go to seminary, thus never having to deal with actual women as equals. Let's clear up a few things 1- PC's date sticker expired in the early 90s. 2- It was a substitute for "liberal" as is ""dirty sticking hippie liberal" for people who couldn't articulate a real argument 3- it never had anything to do with competition. I would say that in general, the "PC" crowd does believe in gender segregated leagues. Title IX would mandate that the league have an equally funded softball league, not that boys and girls play together. I'm not a big fan of IX, but yes, this incident points out the barriers for girls and women in sport. The problem I have is that it assumes equal interest and thus division of funding whereas I would see it based on participation. In this case, allowing her to try out for the baseball team is the sound solution.

Business don't expect cities to build them a 12 story office building for free. and cities do not make money. You're only reinforcing the socialist nature of this financial coddling of the teams. Which perhaps you wish to do, but the other person seems to take great issue with the (accurate) label. BTW, one of these deals cost the County of Alameda 15-20M/year in excess costs for the Raiders deal. That's a lot of money that would have had better use, much better use.