It may be district wide, I don't know, but the discrepancy between some inner city schools and suburban schools can be striking. Take DC compared to the Virginia or Maryland schools, or Cincinnati compared to the suburbs.

I'm fully willing to blame school boards, but regardless I'd like to see buildings brought up to standard. I would have love a huge school renovation component in the stimulus bill.

I would apply it to only a portion of the taxes, so things like common defense and so on would be covered. The idea wouldn't be to completely turn on/off ideas, but offer states increasing leeway for cutting costs/collections. Make anything that is multi-state and some level of services that are a minimum covered by the general portion of the federal budget, and require those appropriations to be based on bills and various department budgets.

Take a significant chunk though, including all non-essential 'earmark' projects, and put that in a population based pool. Let states compete on services/taxes over that pool, without the entire economy collapsing because some jackass state decides its going to cut all programs to nothing and exile all its old people to florida... so some federally mandated stuff would need to be moved out of the general budget into this 'earmarky' land before it could be cut.

I'd put no restriction on people moving between states. The things I'd put in this budget would be less entitlement based at first and more these 'create jobs by throwing money around' programs to start. It slightly changes the dynamic of the whole pork barrel because you would not be able to 'bring back the bacon' to your state by netting some pet project. All the money going to your state, is coming from your state.

My thought is that people who truly believe that tax cuts fuels economic growth would vote down local stimulus packages in favor of less tax burden (say 10-20% of the budget somehow gets moved into this category over time). motivate the politicians to reduce this type of spending themselves so they can take credit for cutting taxes.

After some waste is reduced, hopefully extend the reach to more parts until we get the federal system focused on stuff its more suited for (defense, interstate transport, etc...). It would be increasingly hard to pass bullshit corporate welfare if it became immediately obvious that it was your own constituents paying for these 'stimulus' contracts, not some faceless void in Washington.

interesting idea SportsDino - you've obviously given it some thought!

Disagree. I'm totally against the money that Kit Bond pulled into Missouri despite it being spent in my state. It's a waste of money. Obama can play that card all he wants, but he's dead wrong in that belief. There are a lot of people who are fiscal conservatives who would disagree with that statement.


Perhaps you missed my post on the last page where I was critical of Bond in more than one post for holding approval votes hostage in return for pork. I think it's a waste of money. I just brought up the topic that he brought to light for discussion's sake.

I'm at least a page behind on the thread so this is kind of a drive-by but


Isn't the #1 predictor of educational success actually the parents' own educational attainment level?

Almost a semantic aside I guess, but I'd swear that's actually what the research actually shows the strongest correlation to.

What I'm saying and what you're saying might very well go hand in hand but technically they're two somewhat different things I think.

I don't have easy access to the research I read back when I took an active interest in kicking out my local school board (we won! yay!), but these factors do go hand-in-hand. Parents that encourage kids to get a good education help tremendously. Or to put it another way, when the parents don't care, the kids don't care, and they won't get educated no matter what you try.

But on the point above, parents that are well-educated tend to see the value of a good education and tend to do well economically, parents that are poorly-educated tend to NOT see the value in a good education and tend to do poorly economically, and there are enough exceptions on both sides (poor that DO see the value for their kids and want them to do better, and rich that think everything should get handed to them and throw it all away) to muddy the waters up and give the do-gooders in the NEA the ammunition they need to keep screwing everything up.

The real question is what budget does each school have. The problem can come about when maintenance budgets are separate and the school board decides how to divvy it up, and there is room for inequity there that SHOULD be dealt with. But it's usually separate from the budget to pay for teachers and materials.

Where we had issues locally with a growing school system was the need to build new schools taking away from the maintenance budget. Of course they were horribly mismanaging this, and the people were pushing hard for fewer new schools and more money put towards maintenance and improving the existing school. The only real difference from school-to-school budget-wise here was PTA/PTO money from the parents, which at the "richest" schools came out to a difference of around $100/child out of a $6,000+/child budget from the county compared to the "poorest" schools.

So fundamentally, I agree with your last statement: school maintenance is important. But when you have "nice" schools and "rundown" schools, that's on the board for inequitable distribution of funds, not on taxes that are too low or not enough money spent on education. Most school boards I know if given more tax money would spend it on new offices and more administrators, not actually maintaining the buildings that kids go to school in, or providing basic supplies in the classroom.

Looks like Eric Cantor (R) backed off their 'were not willing to meet' stance without having our preconditions met for the UHC summit with the Pres.

Dear Lord. Where in the hell did this PR nightmare come from? No telling how many days Obama will spend explaining to the public what he meant by this statement. I feel like I'm watching an episode of 'Cheers' when he dives into the baseball analogy.

Simon Johnson: Obama Still Doesn't Get It

Clueless - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

PR nightmare? What? Did I miss something major?

You could you know...use your lead-in to give some idea of what the articles are about instead of just taking shots.

FWIW - I agree with you though. Disgraceful ass-kissing pandering to big-business & big-money. He ought to have more sense than to say something stupid like that in a place where it could get picked up on and reported (as much as i'm sure he's said it in private before, since money makes the world go round).

Blankfein & Dimon's organizations were less to blame for the implosion than others (Dimon keeping JPMorganChase out of it pretty much entirely, and Blankfein's GoldmanSachs having minimal exposure), but still. Common-sense. Public perception. Main Street is hurting...best not to cozy up to the mega-millionaire bankers when you know what public perception of them is. And they're "too big to fail" and being helped immensely by the bank bailouts.

Apologies. Some may not have access to the links if they're at work. Basically put, Obama did a total 180 from his previous stance that large bonuses at financial companies that were bailed out were 'obscene'. It appears that the large bankers have pulled a Jedi mind trick by waiving their hand in front of Obama's eyes and saying 'Bonuses are OK even when the companies are bailed out by the government.'

Krugman is spot-on when he notes that this seems to be a situation where Obama is trying to get on the good side of the banks, but he's a fool if he thinks that the banks will throw the majority of their support behind Democrats.

So basically he said that the idiots with their big bonuses are fairly savvy businessmen and he doesn't want to impede people's desire to accumulate wealth. Then Wall Street is not the only place where people aren't necessarily paid for performance (baseball, hello Carlos Beltran) and he wants a more transparent system where shareholders get to have a say.

Sounds like a PR nightmare straight from Cheers.

Less than a month ago...

President Barack Obama said bonuses dealt out by Wall Street firms are “shameful” while the U.S. economy is in recession and companies are asking for help from taxpayers.

Distributing bonuses now “is the height of irresponsibility” Obama said at the White House, where he held a closed-door meeting with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Vice President Joe Biden. Firms need to “show some restraint and show some discipline and show some sense of responsibility.”

That's cool MBBF. Note my post directly above yours - I agree with you on this one (at least as much as i can without seeing the full interview yet). Was just curious what the fuss was over - I hadn't seen it yet.

The problem isn't necessarily that he's wrong on all accounts (he is on some IMO). The problem is that it's a direct opposite stance to what he took last year, where all bonuses were unacceptable. You want a leader to stay the course and provide a steady vision. We're over a year in now and he's drastically contradicting his own statements. That's not what a good leader does.

I'll agree on Dimon and disagree on Blankfein. GS, after all, was the actor that, amongst other things, most set up AIG to fail.

JPM's role as the bank of last resort, on the other hand, should not be undervalued. Without JPM's relatively clean and healthy balance sheet, and Dimon's willingness to take over failing banks & mortgage companies at the request of the Fed, the last two years probably look even worse than they did.

The real problem Obama has with GS is that GS alumni are everywhere and have an extraordinary amount of control over the financial system.

Dunno, sounds to me that he's still saying they sort of suck. I fail to see how he's drastically contradicting his own statements (he's not saying they are worth it and these bonuses are wonderful, is he?). Then again, I'm not some spin puppet with an agenda (I know, I know, you are moderate).

It seems to me that you should be mostly happy with the democrats as they aren't really bending over the economy so much and you agree with their social agenda for the most part (so you say). I would more expect you to be on here every day railing about Kit Bond, Lindsay Graham, and the sort. They are bending over the economy (and have been for years with their spending) AND are fairly much against every social issue that you purport to adhere to. I mean, you post shit about Pelosi, Reed, Nelson, all these crooked democrats, but at least they are 50% acceptable to you. I just never hear a peep about the people who want to spend your money in excess and control people's personal life.

that is very true about GS alumni - they're insidious and everywhere. I agree on the GS-AIG bit...was speaking more about their limited exposure to MBS and subprime losses. But in the grand scheme of things yes, they did screw over AIG pretty bad. Then again AIG was a big boy...they should be held responsible on their own as well.

Goldman's also done quite well through the bailouts, so I'm not excusing them there either.

He's not really contradicting his own statements---it's two authors who don't particularly like his policies to begin with and it's a Bloomberg write up designed to get people's attention.

It's another example of people blowing something out of proportion without having read the actual interview.

but he never should have said something that could be so easily blown out of proportion, knowing that that would inevitably happen. he's the damn president. and he's by all accounts intelligent and articulate. and he has plenty of handlers. that kind of thing shouldn't happen.

But then a president should never say anything because any little thing the president says is always blown out of proportion by opponents.

Paul Krugman didn't actually read the interview. Simon Johnson didn't read the interview. It's not available until the end of the week. But, guess what, everybody is now going to read the interview. Bloomberg did its part to make sure it would be the top story. They put together two statements that he's made before and turned them into "a position shift."

Sure, it's PR nightmare, because we've become so obsessed with gotcha moments we don't take the time the time to actually get what's being said. The GOP has already sent out press releases saying that he's changed his mind on banks, yet, they won't support stringent bank regulation. It's just risen to the level of absurdity and stupidity. BUT, there is a difference between saying "I don't bebrudge big bank CEO's for their big bonuses" and saying "I, like most Americans, don't begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system."

Like Focus on the Family played pro-choice people with the Tim Tebow commericial, we're all being played by Bloomberg (who is notorious for pulling stuff out of context and throwing it together becuase it sells).

this i can totally agree with

A buddy of mine coaches football in a poorer area (he's African American). He made a great comment to me one day when we were talking about this: "Until the inner city community puts as much emphasis on a kid getting an 'A' on a math test as a kid scoring a touchdown on Friday night, education will continue to be an uphill climb here".

I think he's dead on and that's an issue no politician will ever touch.

very true

I don't know, maybe I'm crazy. But, if Obama is dropping this populist drivel that "all big bonuses are bad" and actually looking at the situation with more critical thinking, I'm glad to see it. I have no problem with people changing their mind if they were wrong to begin with ;)

Which is why I pointed out early in this discussion that successful inner-city education programs, and they are out there, have a strong community involvement aspect that gets the parents as well as the kids interested in the school. Throwing money at the school is throwing money away.

And you obviously didn't read the full piece. Johnson posted the entire quote at the bottom of his piece and there's nothing in it that changes the context of the comment.

Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see any mention of the Gibbs/Palin grocery list flare up recently. I noticed that Andrew Sullivan termed it a pathetic stunt that was beneath his official position. I also saw another comment in Andrew's blog where it was noted that the White House pays far more attention to Palin and her activities than they'd like the general public to believe. Anyone disagree with either point?

Or care, for that matter?

I'm a Republican but can't stand Palin. That said I agree that it's surprising how much time/effort the White House spends campaigning for a job they already have. I would expect something like that if you're running for office...not if you already have the power.

I agree on hiring enough good teachers. One of the things I hate is school administrations that cut teacher positions while still growing the admin budget...

just skimming. Really busy day here. I couldnt find anywhere where MBBF apologized for his comment about the Governer's disability. Im faux-shocked that the fabric with which MBBF stands upon is a big fabric of shit when he played that Short bus card a while back and then continues to pull this shit making fun of someone's disability.

That being said, Ill say this:

If this is a new MBBF, one in which he doesnt give a shit anymore, will make fun of anyone and everyone for whatever he deems fit with no care at all, than I guess his hypocrisy benchmark can start from there. It'll certainly be an easier road to hoe in his GOP regurge campaign but I, for one, hate to see MBBF continue his routine which is:

make a ridiculous/hypocritical/GOP talking point comment
get called on it
move on without having to defend what was said, apologize and admit his err OR claim that it was:

taken out of context, misinterpreted, misread, etc.

rinse repeat

Honestly, when I saw the Palin picture, I didn't think much of it. From where I stand, it's exactly the kind of thing you'd expect to see from Palin. Part of her popularity amongst certain circles is that she's not like most politicians, for better or worse. I'm not sure what Gibbs was trying to accomplish.

Well, I haven't heard this story yet but it sounds like it was stupid and glad it flew under my radar. Hell, pretty much everyone's radar.

SI

It's called the 'too big to fail' model of education. :)

Interesting Huffington Post article on the Tea Party movement I just saw when looking at Iran stuff.


Stuart Whatley: The Tea Party Movement Is a National Embarrassment

this next bit describe a worldview that i think lies at the heart of the whole "Tea Party" movement, as well as...well...read it for yourself and it may become more clear.

Umm ... it was a top 4 story on both AP & Reuters for the better part of a day and spent at least some time on the front page of pretty much every newspaper website I hit during that span. Not sure how that's under everyone's radar.

Although health care reform last year was about the scariest garbage bill I've seen in years... so there was misinformation perhaps (that private companies would be destroyed), but under the radar those private companies were about to get a massive bill of their liking into play. I have a feeling both sides are playing off each other to screw us, pretending to hate each other, while in the backroom they are letting through toxic legislation.

Fixed.

Well duh. Most things on there are political editorials. I didn't notice you make that distinction on the poo you posted yesterday.

I'm not even going to go back and forth with you on the definition of article vs. editorial, because we all know how that ends, and what's interesting isn't how you refer to the piece, but rather the content of it (disclaimer - i've never read the book, never looked it up on amazon.com, have no idea of the author's credentials or anything). It just sure seemed like an interesting bit of political science, and the conclusions in the piece sure do "jive" with what one notices from Tea Partiers.

Depressing analysis from Gregg Easterbrook, perhaps better known to some as the columnist of Tuesday Morning Quarterback:

it's only if the stuff isn't flattering to his worldview that he'll call it out.

fact of the matter is that it is an "article" by the definition of the word. Might not be a "news article," but a "political editorial" is still an "article," because an editorial (by definition) is an article.


ed·i·to·ri·al (d-tôr-l, -tr-)

n. 1. An article in a publication expressing the opinion of its editors or publishers.



ar·ti·cle (ärt-kl)

n. 1. An individual thing or element of a class; a particular object or item: an article of clothing; articles of food.
2. A particular section or item of a series in a written document, as in a contract, constitution, or treaty.
3. A nonfictional literary composition that forms an independent part of a publication, as of a newspaper or magazine.

and awesome when you consider his stance on the Television News/Opinion programs that are interspersed. If you remember a few pages back that was an awesome go around and now this is just another cog in the MBBF hypocrisy machine.

I don't think the tea party thing is just about cutting taxes. It's about the inevitable bankruptcy of the country.

It's too bad that some of the silliness of the people in that movement have led to an overbroad mockery of those of us who just want the government to be more fiscally responsible. To me, smaller government/lower taxes isn't nearly as important as having a government we can afford without destroying the future of the country. If the people insist on a government with ultimate power over everything, by all means, raise taxes to pay for it. Low taxes and a government that prints money out of thin air to promote its idea of how everyone has to live is nice (for some), but it can't be sustained.

+1

The Tea Party movement and Palin both get far more attention than they really deserve. They're somewhat like a kid who makes a scene to draw attention, resulting in the well behaved kid with good grades hardly getting any attention. The focus by detractors on that movement is a critical misjudgement by Democrats. They're focusing on a relatively small portion of the conservative side of the argument.

They'd be far better off to concentrate on reducing the debt in any way possible. More spending bills will continue to get met with frustration by the general public.

I'd LOVE a more fiscally responsible government, as someone who is going to have to pay for the fiscal excesses so far throughout my entire life. but illogical "solutions" to that aren't solutions at all.

+1

People think if they aren't being taxed there is no reason to complain. Where do they think this money is coming from? As a lower/middle class teacher I have very little federal tax burden but from reading history this no tax hike/print money policy always fails. Throughout history it is always a "crisis" that once we get out of they will become more fiscally sound. But we never get out of the crisis. No shit, you are causing the "crisis" by endlessly printing money!

Republican spending is no better.

how is it that something over 50% of Americans don't pay any federal income tax?? i knew the number was significant, but that's just ridiculous.

100% of people should pay federal income tax.

Sorry but that is just a bad of an answer as the illogical "solutions" you speak of. And I think you know you won't catch me in some "defend Bush" arguement either because he was a complete trainwreck as a president If we don't stop printing money, don't stop spending money and fighting wars without raising taxes to pay for it, we are heading to something a bit more serious than "To big the fail".

You're correct. I never tried to pass it off as unbiased journalism, though it should be noted that the quote from the president was direct and unaltered.

And once again, you fall back on that crutch of an argument that holds no merit. I've repeatedly blasted the spending by Bush in his second term. The argument that one isn't better than the other is a very weak and overly used argument in this forum. I've called out both Republican and Democrat administrations on their spending. I've called out both Republican and Democratic congressman on their wasteful spending (including my own representatives I might add).

It's fine to say you agree with the debt being run up. It's lazy and disingenuous to say 'they did it, so it's no worse than that'.

When Republican officials stop genuflecting to the teabaggers I'll ignore them, but as long as the elected GOPers follow the lead of the Tea Parties they are well worth watching.

It should also be noted it was an excerpt from an unreleased interview that was being used to get more people to read a biased editorial. But, being the good member of the flock, you passed it on, made some failed reading comprehension evaluations, and went back to policing the interwebs for "democrats are spending my money, Obama is a flip flopping liar" articles to post.

The problem with the Tea Baggers is that it's hard to figure out what they are for. Are they about fiscal responsibility or tax cuts no matter what? Maybe they're birthers? Maybe they're anti-immigration? Maybe they're pro-war, but maybe they're anti-war? At the end of the day there doesn't seem to be much that unites them except anger at Obama.

Here's a good article or "article" or article or article or article* by a conservative journalist who attended the convention.

What???

FYI - the world "article" doesn't imply unbiased, and neither does anything else I said.

Honestly, the GOP has turned the Tea Party goofballs into a political heat shield of sorts. They let the Democrats focus on the Tea Party while quietly riding along a parallel road. It makes the Democrats look even more distracted and off-point while allowing the GOP to continue forth relatively free of criticism. It's a situation that the Democrats have created for themselves by focusing so heavily on Palin and the Tea Party.

Was that bolded part really necessary?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incongruous

SI

You've driven home the exact point many are making. It continues to be puzzling at best why the Democrats waste so much time focusing on this small group of 'kooks' while allowing the GOP to work along with very little criticism. This just in.......the GOP and the disgruntled public opinion about Obama's policies is a far bigger threat to the Democrats than the Tea Party or Sarah Palin.

and that is untrue. You did NOT call out the Republican spending when they were in office which is why your chastising now draws such ire. You may call them out now (Congressman that is) however you still have given them shoulder room when accepting the tarp dollars even when they railed against it. Its lazy and disingenuous when you faux shock or senstitivty yet you continue to do it without apology.

I think I touched on this point the other day (different thread maybe?), that "tea party" is pretty much used as a catch-all term at this point & covers an extremely broad range of "most important issue" voters.


I'd argue that's more along the lines of "an extreme dislike of liberal policies and/or liberals" moreso than Obama. Stick another equally unqualified figure in the WH & you'd get pretty much the same reaction, point being it just happens to be Obama since he's the guy in the chair.



Fixed that for you.

your first and last sentence contradict eachother but it is awesome that you spun your own brain into blaming the dems when you start by saying that the GOP have 'turned' meaning to effect. nice.

I'd strongly disagree, at least at this point as far as re-election is concerned.

Right now, if you count Palin outside the GOP at least for the time being (since she's at least vaguely hinted at a possible indy/3rd party run), I don't see a Rep. that could beat the son of a bitch without following the same path Palin has. If they run another weak half-assed candidate like McCain they'll get beat the same way they did last time unless Barry decides to rape a goat on the lawn at Easter. And even then it'd be a toss-up.

They aren't contradictory at all. The Democrats created the Tea Party (perhaps it would be better to say they gave the movement some form of legitimacy with their criticisms) and the Republicans are more than happy to use that movement as a heat shield. It's quite simple really.

Great article and thanks for posting.

People like to point to payroll tax (6% to 100K) and sales tax (around 6-7% on purchases) as taxes middle to lower income people pay. So, they do pay some taxes, but the federal income tax burden is extremely skewed. The top 5% reported 26.8% of the income, but paid 43.4% of the taxes. The bottom 50% of tax filers reported 15.1% of the income, but paid only 5.5% of the taxes. Some estimate that the top 50% of tax filers will pay for over 97% of the taxes in the next 5 years. The wealthy also pay payroll tax on their first 100K and pay sales tax - so there is a pretty big tax burden on the rich in this country.

Oh, I agree with that. I would certainly think it would be a more conservative candidate than McCain.

If Palin ends up with the GOP nomination, I predict that Obama's re-election margin would make Reagan-Mondale look like Bush-Gore or Kennedy-Nixon.

I saw a statistic the other day that mentioned of the times a losing VP candidate ran as a presidential candidate later on, there were 4 wins against 12 losses. All four wins were FDR.

Who does the GOP have out there? It's definitely hazy 2 years out on the horizon but the big name still seem to be Romney, Huckabee, and Palin and all have serious warts (but what politician doesn't).

And the Tea Party seems intent on crucifying any moderate candidate who could get broad based support in the general election (like Crist).

SI

Agreed.


But when presented with a moderate GOP vs. Obama, there's little question who they'll vote for (assuming they don't have their own candidate).

If this was a different time, Obama might face a real challenge in the Democratic primaries. That probably can't happen today, but how many Democrats wouldn't mind a "do-over" wth Hillary Clinton?

I'd vote for anyone v. Palin, Clinton v. many Republicans, and any remotely moderate Republican v. Obama.

Oh hell no. You think you're seeing partisan fighting now? Imagine how bad it would be if Clinton was President.

Of course panerd & Bucc would be happy as Washington would have ground to a complete halt.

The baseball line struck me as a shitty comparision. If the Yankees overpay for everyone and lose a lot of money, it doesn't put our financial system at risk and cost untold amounts of jobs. To compare these guys positions to baseball players is just absurd.

I think someone on the platform of Palin could win, but I don't think she can. Most of the country realizes she's a simpleton and not fit for office. I also think to win, the candidate can't just be an attack dog. They'll have to be really likeable in the process.

The one thing Obama has going for him is time. Just based on time, the economy is bound to turn around by 2012. So if we're down to 7% unemployment and the DOW is at 13,000, he's got more to campaign on. It seems shitty to say but when you come into power under horrible times, you can basically take the credit for any improvements regardless of whether you made it happen or not. He will have improvements to show simple based on the fact it couldn't get much worse.

I honestly don't think they stand for anything in particular. It's just a catch-all hate Obama crowd. People who have been riled up by hate mongerers on TV and the radio. You have a mix of small government folks. anti-liberals, racists, and opportunists.

The conspiracy theorist comparision is probably the best. It reminds me a bit of the truthers that ran around over the years holding conventions and protesting for "the truth". Not nearly as big or received the same coverage, but similar.

You are right that I like gridlock in Washington but that doesn't seem to stop the Replublicrats and Demolicans from spending. Neither Republicans or Democrats ever seem to have any problems wastefully spending money in the wakes of such "crises" as...

2006-10: Banking
2001-5: Terrorism
1999-2000: Dot.com bubble crisis
1990's: Surprisingly no real complaints from me. The cross of Clinton and the Republicans in Congress seemed to actually try and curb spending. (Maybe this is a good sign for the GOP takeover in 2010?)
1986-1991: S & L Crisis
1980's: Inner City Drug Crisis/Communists are coming!
1976-1980: Oil/Energy Crisis
1950-1989: Communism

Weird that we are always in a crisis and Washington always has to spend money. (Raising taxes might effect relections or kill the "two party" spending system) Wish I could live my life that way! Another crisis! I will buy a car on my credit card. I can pay it off down the road but right now I am in a crisis!!!!!! Car broke down. Need to buy a jet. Put it on my card. It's a crisis!!!!!

Almost all of the difference would just be style. Clinton might have been able to get more done, but substantively there just isn't much difference between Obama and Clinton. What do you think she would have done differently?

For one there would be no tea party because they are just racists in disguise so everyone would be happy. Nobody would care about spending if it was a white doing it.

Huh?

SI

The converse is also true. If he can't fix a mess that he didn't have a hand in creating and only has a limited hand in fixing, he'll be blamed for it.

SI

Please tell me you're not serious.

Especially if they had a gun and could keep Nazis at bay.

Overall spending grew during the Clinton years, but higher taxes and a booming economy led to a surplus.

So with two more House GOP retirements over the last couple of days that means more than 10% of the House GOP caucus is retiring.

Ready to retire a silly meme or still seeing the writing on the wall? You decide.

Much of that depends on which two retired. They were?

:lol:

I don't seem to recall similar qualifiers when it was democrats who were retiring. :lol: :lol:

Diaz-Balart and a guy in MI that I can't recall.

Why does it matter who if they are GOP? Isn't retiring alone enough to know that they must be running scared?

Or maybe, as I said when Dodd et al retired, retirement decisions are more complicated.

You don't have to qualify it when you know the scenarios surrounding the retirements. It was clear when those retirements occurred exactly what the motivation was in each situation.

LMAO

uh huh...suuuuure

So you aren't even aware of who you're talking about in one case, but you're willing to suggest that they're 'running scared"?

Your arguments recently have really taken a dive. You can do better than that. Make the argument as to why each of them is "running scared" if you actually believe it. Otherwise, don't suggest it.

So which one of the senators in that scenario do you believe was retiring and never considered how far they were behind in reelection polling numbers? Just curious.

When you are always looking up from your vantage point, everything appears to be a dive.

Ironic this would come from a Texas fan.

Thank you for proving my point.

*WHOOOOSH*

Agreed. JPhillips has lost all sense of discussion at this point. He's more interested in being cute than having an actual discussion.

*WHOOOOSH*

You're welcome. Now head on back to the "Spring Football 2010" thread.

Can we just delete the last 50 or so posts and start over?