Front Office Football Central
Page 201 of 527 « First < 101151191192193194195196197198199200 201 202203204205206207208209210211251301 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=69042)

RainMaker 06-29-2010 06:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2311201)
When does California become one? We know the federal bailout is coming soon, right? They are broke.
When they start getting back what they paid in as a state. How do you bailout a state with their own money?

molson 06-29-2010 06:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2311203)
When they start getting back what they paid in as a state. How do you bailout a state with their own money?

What is the practical application of your obsession with "welfare states", and states getting "screwed"?

Would you favor a constitutional amendment that required 1:1 fed taxing/spending fairness across the states?

And why just limit this unjust differential to states? Let's do it with races. I bet whites are being "screwed" compared to minorities, in terms of taxes v. support. Is that a travesty? I bet married suburban couples are getting "screwed" compared to single urban mothers. Isn't that what government is supposed to do?

molson 06-29-2010 06:16 PM
Anyway, if the deal is that tomorrow, federal support to Idaho is cut by some amount, AND Idahoan's federal income taxes are cut by the same ratio, I'm sure many (middle class people and up at least), would sign onto that in a second.

Only the poor would be screwed in that scenario.

panerd 06-29-2010 06:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2311203)
When they start getting back what they paid in as a state. How do you bailout a state with their own money?

EDIT: I could care less about this as I don't support most of the federal programs. So don't get mad if I leave this debate to you and Molson as I feel like I am starting to defend Republicans who I care about even less than Democrats.

RainMaker 06-29-2010 06:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by molson (Post 2311206)
What is the practical application of your obsession with "welfare states", and states getting "screwed"?

Would you favor a constitutional amendment that required 1:1 fed taxing/spending fairness across the states?

And why just limit this unjust differential to states? Let's do it with races. I bet whites are being "screwed" compared to minorities, in terms of taxes v. support. Is that a travesty? I bet married suburban couples are getting "screwed" compared to single urban mothers. Isn't that what government is supposed to do?
No I don't support that at all. I just like pointing out hypocrisy. It's hypocritical to whine about the federal government if you are living off them. And it's wrong to call it a bailout when a state is being paid back with the money they put in but never received back.

I would say the same thing about individuals. If a guy is collecting a welfare check to survive and then goes on and on bitching about the government, I'd call him a hypocrite. Just as I wouldn't call a rich guy a failure who went bankrupt having to support deadbeat family members.

JPhillips 06-29-2010 06:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2311158)
Count me as one who seems to have been swayed too much by his father and by interviews Rand did before winning the Republican primary. (He was very much anti government spending and also seemed to be anti-war and anti drug war in interviews back in the spring) There are two things that help me keep hope alive...

1) A lot of people think he is playing the game and will ultimately lean way more libertarian if he wins the senate seat. I have to say I am not a fan of this. His father seems to have no problems winning his seat in the House based solely on principles. Of course Ron Paul has had trouble in the past running for Senate/President so maybe this is a strategy you have to use for a bigger office like this.

2) He is probably still a better candidate than 99% of the members of both parties of Congress right now. I am an even smaller fan of this. Yet another "bitch about health care and compromise on endless war and continuing the drug war and turn your back on bashing gays" candidate.

I will eat crow on my Rand "rants" but one has to wonder why all of the mainstream media all over the country was all over his jock (he was big news here in St. Louis for a while) In the age of the internet you have to admit when a national party tries to smears their own candidate it isn't quite as easy to hide as it used to be in the days of three news stations and about a dozen major newspapers.

I will continue to support Ron Paul though.

JPhillips: The principle of the gold standard is quite simple and not really that radical. Your central bank must back their currency with some sort of tangible commodity. As it is the Federal Reserve can just print $4 billion and send it to GM or $10 billion to Greece or God who knows how much to Goldman Sachs. With a better system they would have to justify where the hell they are getting this money from and couldn't just roll out the printing press. Of course Ron Paul wants the Congress to have that power which I can't say is any different than the Fed having it and could possibly be worse. But I do have a problem with bailouts and the welfare state (both for individuals and corporations) and I don't think proposing that they account for tax money is all that radical or crazy an idea.

EDIT: I guess somebody could say they sell bonds to the Chinese to justify the continual printing press. If that is a defense of the Federal Reserve then God help us all.

There's a whole lot of difference between auditing the Fed, which I would like to see, and returning our economy to the gold standard. Tying our economy and to a large extent the global economy to the price of a single commodity just isn't smart. Look at the price of gold over the last ten years. Do you really think it would have been a good idea to have that price fluctuation as the foundation of our currency?

DaddyTorgo 06-29-2010 07:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2311178)
"End the Fed" is a chant by the Tea Party where 99.9% of the people don't understand the ramifications. (That includes me, though I would like to think I have a little better background in economics than the Sarah Palin supporters) However this arguement doesn't have to be framed as either we have the free-spending Fed or the free-spending Congress. There are some bills out there that want a full audit of the Federal Reserve (not a takeover) that don't seem that crazy. And when Berneke says it might damage the economy if we knew what was going on count me as one who doesn't say "Well fuck it then"

Can you imagine?

Me: "Where did all of our money go?"
Wife: "Spent most of it, loaned some to friends"
Me: "Where?"
Wife: "You are better off not knowing"

I'm in favor of a full audit of the Fed FWIW.

DaddyTorgo 06-29-2010 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JediKooter (Post 2311190)
What the hell does that have to do with being a christian? Oh, wait, it's because she thinks her religion is superior to any other religion or way of thinking and that as an elected official, she will try and impose her religion on others by legislating it.

She's a fuckin whack-a-doo.

JediKooter 06-29-2010 07:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2311247)
She's a fuckin whack-a-doo.

I would not be surprised if she was their Queen whack-a-doo.

molson 06-29-2010 09:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2311226)
No I don't support that at all. I just like pointing out hypocrisy. It's hypocritical to whine about the federal government if you are living off them. And it's wrong to call it a bailout when a state is being paid back with the money they put in but never received back.

I would say the same thing about individuals. If a guy is collecting a welfare check to survive and then goes on and on bitching about the government, I'd call him a hypocrite. Just as I wouldn't call a rich guy a failure who went bankrupt having to support deadbeat family members.

The richest, whitest, most Republican people in Idaho would completely agree with you.

JPhillips 06-30-2010 01:42 PM
Want to stabilize the debt? Do nothing!



From Matt Yglesias' blog:

Quote:
See that line where the debt:GDP ratio is stable? That’s what happens under current law. If congress changes nothing, or the president vetoes everything, then this is what happens. No apocalypse. But nobody believes that’s going to happen. Nobody believes the Bush tax cuts will fully expire. Nobody expects the AMT phase-in to happen. Nobody expects physicians’ Medicare reimbursement rates to be held in check. And though I think he’s mistaken about this, Doug Elmendorf is skeptical that some cost-saving elements of the Affordable Care Act will ever be implemented. That’s the “alternative fiscal scenario” in which the debt level skyrockets.

But note that congress doesn’t need to do these things that it’s projected to do under the alternative fiscal scenario. Congress can stick to current law, and we’ll be fine. Alternatively, as Brad DeLong suggests, congress can commit to pay-as-you-go budgeting whereby if they choose to implement the large tax cuts and doctor salary increases they’re predicted to implement they offset these measures with other tax increases or spending cuts. If congress does that, we’ll be fine. This would give a successive series of congresses the opportunity to take a whack at modest ideas to increase the growth rate of health care spending.

Mustang 06-30-2010 02:05 PM

DaddyTorgo 06-30-2010 03:04 PM
lol

molson 06-30-2010 03:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustang (Post 2311584)

I think I've gotten that shirt as a gag gift 5 times.

It sucks 'cause I can't wear it. I mean, give me something I can use, people.

panerd 06-30-2010 03:42 PM


.

Mizzou B-ball fan 07-06-2010 07:30 PM
Interesting open letter from Zogby to Silver. Not terribly surprised to see something like this as there have been complaints related to Silver's smug commentary at times.

John Zogby: A Note to Nate

JPhillips 07-06-2010 08:16 PM
It's an advertisement. Silver has the goods on the Zogby interactive(as do lots of other folks). It's a seriously unreliable poll. Zogby's phone polls are better, but the interactive is total garbage.

Passacaglia 07-07-2010 07:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2314840)
Interesting open letter from Zogby to Silver. Not terribly surprised to see something like this as there have been complaints related to Silver's smug commentary at times.

John Zogby: A Note to Nate

I don't get how you can read the article you linked, yet think Silver is the smug one.

flere-imsaho 07-07-2010 08:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2314840)
Not terribly surprised to see something like this as there have been complaints related to Silver's smug commentary at times.

Complaints almost always from pollsters ranked low in reliability by Silver's algorithms. Or, put another way, pollsters with a factual history of unreliable polls whose unreliability is made more clear by the way Silver exposes all of his data to the public.

No sympathy. And Zogby's perhaps the worst of the well-known offenders and has been for years.

flere-imsaho 07-07-2010 08:55 AM
Silver responds: FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: A Note to John Zogby

Key quote:

Quote:
Along those lines, I think you need to examine the thought process behind your interactive (Internet) polling, which any objective attempt at analysis will demonstrate has achieved vastly inferior results, beyond any shadow of a doubt. They don't do justice to the years of solid work embodied in your live-operator polls.

miked 07-07-2010 09:10 AM
Interesting goings on in Hawaii. House and senate both passed a same-sex marriage bill (allowing same rights, without recognizing marriage I believe) and it was vetoed by the republican governor. She says it's such an important issue, the people should vote on it themselves, and not the elected leaders (that already banned same sex marriage). She says it's not the job for elected officials to have closed doors meetings and legislate something of such societal importance. So my question is, what is the point of the legislators if not to represent the people?

Mizzou B-ball fan 07-07-2010 09:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Passacaglia (Post 2315051)
I don't get how you can read the article you linked, yet think Silver is the smug one.

I read Silver's site on a daily basis. He's very smug at times and as Zogby notes, it will catch up to him.

flere-imsaho 07-07-2010 10:54 AM
Here's a considerably better critique than Zogby's op-ad(vert): Pollster.com: Rating Pollster Accuracy: How Useful?

Ronnie Dobbs2 07-07-2010 10:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2315089)
I read Silver's site on a daily basis. He's very smug at times and as Zogby notes, it will catch up to him.

Meh. Personally I'm glad he's not part of the back-slapping what's good for the goose is good for the gander insiders. We need more smug people in politics to cut through the bullshit.

DaddyTorgo 07-07-2010 09:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2315089)
I read Silver's site on a daily basis. He's very smug at times and as Zogby notes, it will catch up to him.

:lol:

JPhillips 07-12-2010 12:10 PM
Quote:
"[Y]ou should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes," Jon Kyl said on Fox News Sunday. "Surely Congress has the authority, and it would be right to -- if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset the cost of increased spending, and that's what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans."

Deficit, schmeficit. At least he didn't say all tax cuts pay for themselves.

DaddyTorgo 07-12-2010 01:31 PM
fiscal irresponsibility FTW!!!

albionmoonlight 07-12-2010 01:52 PM
No one talks about him much, but John Kyl might be my least favorite Senator for a variety of reasons, most of which are too boring to go into here.

But that quote above about taxes and spending should indicate to anyone that America will be better off when Kyl no longer represents 1% of the United States Senate.

JPhillips 07-12-2010 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by albionmoonlight (Post 2318707)
No one talks about him much, but John Kyl might be my least favorite Senator for a variety of reasons, most of which are too boring to go into here.

But that quote above about taxes and spending should indicate to anyone that America will be better off when Kyl no longer represents 1% of the United States Senate.

He's hardly alone. The McMahon commercials out of CT have her supporting a balanced budget amendment and a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts, all without even mentioning a dollar of budget cuts.

JonInMiddleGA 07-12-2010 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by albionmoonlight (Post 2318707)
But that quote above about taxes and spending should indicate to anyone that America will be better off when Kyl no longer represents 1% of the United States Senate.

Did you know that Kyl is actually more popular than the average US Senator?
Public Policy Polling: Senate Approval Ratings

JediKooter 07-12-2010 02:57 PM
You take his name out of there and it sounds like something Palin would say, but, you would then have to question whether or not she actually said it because it doesn't meander enough.

molson 07-12-2010 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2318721)
He's hardly alone. The McMahon commercials out of CT have her supporting a balanced budget amendment and a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts, all without even mentioning a dollar of budget cuts.

I'm starting to think that McMahon campaign might actually not be just a drawn-out wrestling angle.

DaddyTorgo 07-12-2010 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2318721)
He's hardly alone. The McMahon commercials out of CT have her supporting a balanced budget amendment and a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts, all without even mentioning a dollar of budget cuts.

It's called a "fuck the future...we baby boomers want to have our cake and eat it too" plan.

stevew 07-12-2010 03:14 PM
I dunno why 30 and 40 somethings want to bicker amongst ourselves about stuff like abortion, etc. The real issue is old people, and how badly the 60-70 somethings are going to fuck up our way of life over the next 20-30 years.

JPhillips 07-12-2010 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2318739)
Did you know that Kyl is actually more popular than the average US Senator?
Public Policy Polling: Senate Approval Ratings

But 43 approve/ 40 disapprove is nothing to be proud of.

JonInMiddleGA 07-12-2010 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2318763)
But 43 approve/ 40 disapprove is nothing to be proud of.

Well, relative to most Senators, it's actually pretty good.

And with disapproval ratings, I don't see much that's really meaningful. Let's see how many of those with big swings to the negative end up getting re-elected anyway. Likely there's a function of "disapprove but for very different reasons", further illustrating the depth of the divide among even residents of the same state, much less the nation. And then there's "disapprove but beats the hell out of the alternative", which is another sub-segment within those who disapprove.

DaddyTorgo 07-12-2010 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevew (Post 2318760)
I dunno why 30 and 40 somethings want to bicker amongst ourselves about stuff like abortion, etc. The real issue is old people, and how badly the 50-70 somethings are going to fuck up our way of life over the next 20-30 years.

Fixed - and true.

Galaxy 07-12-2010 05:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2318758)
It's called a "fuck the future...we baby boomers want to have our cake and eat it too" plan.


This isn't a GOP approach either. Both parties play this motto.

Generation X and Y (which is mine) seems to be blamed for being lazy and irresponsible by the Boomers, but the Boomers never seem to look in the mirror. Just remember, we "pick" the nursing home when they are old.


Only 20-to-30 years? I got a feeling it's going to a lot longer than that.

molson 07-12-2010 05:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galaxy (Post 2318835)

Generation X and Y (which is mine) seems to be blamed for being lazy and irresponsible by the Boomers, but the Boomers never seem to look in the mirror. Just remember, we "pick" the nursing home when they are old.

They also destroyed the environment.

Stupid old people.

DaddyTorgo 07-12-2010 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by molson (Post 2318838)
They also destroyed the environment.

Stupid old people.

Yup!

miked 07-13-2010 08:48 AM
With Georgia unemployment higher than the National average, as well as a state budget crisis (in that education is being cut like nobody's business), what are the potential GOP candidates arguing over?

Quote:
Less than a day after the former Alaska governor announced she is backing former Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel, a GOP opponent is out with a scathing campaign commercial that suggests Handel once supported abortion rights.

"She gave almost a half-million dollars to an abortion provider. And supported tax-payer benefits for gay couples. Sounds like a liberal Democrat. It's the Karen Handel you didn't know," says a new ad from John Oxendine, the state insurance commissioner who is considered the frontrunner in the race.

Rednecks everywhere rejoice!

tarcone 07-13-2010 09:20 AM
DONT TRUST ANYONE OVER 50

RainMaker 07-13-2010 11:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2318739)
Did you know that Kyl is actually more popular than the average US Senator?
Public Policy Polling: Senate Approval Ratings
I don't know much about Kyl, but I know he was on a one-man wrecking crew that tried to destroy internet gambling. He was and still is hated amongst anyone who likes to play some poker or bet on a sporting event online.

Ronnie Dobbs2 07-13-2010 12:01 PM
I don't want to pull a MBBF (got this from another board, so I imagine it's a talking point right now) but this really distills the tone-deafness from the Obama Administration that has really got me thinking against voting for him again.

Obama Says Middle Name May Be Source of Israeli Skepticism - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Mizzou B-ball fan 07-13-2010 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2319310)
I don't want to pull a MBBF (got this from another board, so I imagine it's a talking point right now) but this really distills the tone-deafness from the Obama Administration that has really got me thinking against voting for him again.

Obama Says Middle Name May Be Source of Israeli Skepticism - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

You may associate me with posting legitimate points from other sites anytime you wish.

JPhillips 07-14-2010 03:36 PM
Another winner from Kyl:

Quote:
"Well, one of the things we did in the health care legislation was to provide a lot of different incentives for preventive care, for screening to try to help people avoid illnesses on the theory that it would be a lot cheaper if we didn't do a lot of treatment that was unnecessary."

We?

JPhillips 07-14-2010 09:25 PM
Is Dick Cheney nearing the end of his life? This is from Talkingpointsmemo:

Quote:
I'm a surgeon and just read your wire story about Dick Cheney getting a Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) placed. The story downplays the seriousness of that procedures...once you've got an LVAD in place, it means your heart is essentially incapable of working on its own and has no potential to improve. While LVAD outcomes have been improving, and some patients live months or even years with one of these devices in place, this is a HUGE operation with MAJOR associated morbidity and mortality. If he's not listed for a heart transplant, his days are seriously numbered. Life on an LVAD isn't something I'd wish on my worst enemy...an axiom that this situation really tests. He's in for a rough time.

I know congestive heart failure was the COD for my Grandmother, but she was near 90. God bless him and family.

JPhillips 07-15-2010 09:40 AM
triple dola!

Rand Paul, profile in courage:

Quote:
"No one [in the Republican Party] is forcing me to do anything. I do exactly what I want, but I am also realistic about what it takes to run a campaign and get elected."

For instance, instead of calling for the elimination of many federal departments -- as his father, Ron Paul, the libertarian Republican congressman and former presidential candidate, regularly does -- Paul says he is trying to "nibble around the edges," to "not be the person who says he will eliminate every department in the federal government. My dad freely will say that, that he would eliminate at least half of the departments, but he is just more forthright."

Swaggs 07-15-2010 09:46 AM
He sounds like an appropriate candidate to replace Jim Bunning. :)

DaddyTorgo 07-15-2010 10:27 AM
i do not think this word (forthright) means what he thinks it means:


forth·right
























 (fôrthrt, frth-)

adj. 1. Direct and without evasion; straightforward:



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:38 AM.
Page 201 of 527 « First < 101151191192193194195196197198199200 201 202203204205206207208209210211251301 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.