Magox

Krugman still wrong Key takeaways: Oh the horror, rather than 1.3% drop in growth, it's 1%. Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/09/krugmans_still_wrong_118323.html#ixzz2SpBdLse7 $9 in tax increases to $1 in cuts??? And they blame the cuts for their protracted slowdown????

In other news, Benghazi is now a fading story, but Gun Control stories are back to trending higher again.

I don't believe blacks will come out nearly as high in numbers (% wise) for Hillary or any other white Democratic future nominee as they did for Obama, unless of course the candidate is black or has a strong "connection" with the black community.

No Problem B-Man

B-Man I looked into this a little more and here is what I found: Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz2SomkXat2 So actually, they did make it a tougher border security measure, not just for the "high risk" measures that the National Review reported on but the entire "Southern Border"....The portion that they rejected from the Grassley amendment had more to do with setting up more requirements than what is being proposed for illegal immigrants to get green cards issued. You have to understand, the National Review has come out strong against any sort of pathway to legalization for illegal immigrants, so when you read anything from them regarding this topic, you have to take it with a grain of salt. Not saying that you have to dismiss what they say, just keep in mind what their position is regarding this topic. For instance in this case, they state: The amendment, offered by ranking member Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), would also require that heightened security measures be applied to all nine sectors of the Southern border, as opposed to just three sectors identified as “high risk.” Which is true, however that measure was already addressed today that achieves the same goal.

Here is what I have observed from the W.H press corps: When an issue arises that they care about, they will hound the W.H press secretary so much so that it becomes the predominant political topic in the country, and that they apply so much pressure on the W.H that they are forced to give a real explanation or in some cases force them to shake things that causes and creates meaningful action regarding that particular topic. (Remember Valerie Plame?) or (Biden got in front of the president on gay Marriage?) Obviously finding scandal with a conservative president tops the list. Or pushing the president on gay marriage issues, simply because that is a cause they believe is worth pushing. So in this instance, this is a potential scandal with a Liberal president. The desire to seek the truth on this issue, isn't quite at the vociferous level that it would be with a conservative president. But, they have to at least pretend that they are doing their duty. So what they do is they will ask the standard questions, to sort of the check the box that they are, you know, doing their job, and then that's it. No follow up. Nothing. They've done their job. The W.H understands this, they know that the W.H press corps is one of their allies, but they also realize that they have a duty to perform, so what they do is they send out prebuttals and talking points and attempt to create a narrative so that the media reports it with the narrative that they wish for them to report it as. Here is an example: http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/05/white-house-slams-attempts-to-politicize-benghazi-163504.html?hp=r2 Now of course you have seen this "politicization" charge mimicked from Cummings and other liberal politicians. This is the narrative that they want everyone to follow to muddy the waters. So here is the first paragraph in the lead article in Politico today regarding Benghazi: Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/benghazi-hearing-house-oversight-committee-91066.html#ixzz2Sk5UkdFK This is just a small example, I could literally bring up many many instances. To begin the paragraph, this particular journalist, wanted to pass along the core message from the W.H. Which is that this was a "Political" hearing. Not just a political hearing, but a "very political" one. I have very little respect for the media. They are so in the tank for progressive causes and politics that it's pretty much a crock of ****.

My guess is that there will be a few articles that pertain to Benghazi tomorrow, with a few follow up questions during the press briefings and that will be that regarding Benghazi from the traditional media outlets.

I've largely stayed out of this discussion, but I've read up on it extensively reading and considering both sides of the argument. If you look at the data that has come out, and forget about all the talking points, but the true data that has been released, it's quite obvious that there was a deliberate attempt to downplay the terrorist attack of Benghazi, and not only downplay but purposely mislead the country right before the elections through the Susan Rice talking points. The W.H and State Department say it was altered by the intelligence community, yet there seems to be overwhelming evidence that it came from up above. If that is the case, which it appears to be, then it is indeed a cover up. The W.H and their progressive followers have successfully been able to discredit Conservatives on this issue, by simply stating that they are trying to politicize the issue. All you have to do is read many of the mainstream outlets, and half of their Benghazi related stories have more to do with the Republicans who are crying wolf on the issue. Yesterday alone, in Politico, there were 3 separate stories about Republicans who are criticizing the State Department, but none about the Benghazi details itself. In other words, the story was about the accusers of wrongdoing, rather than the story itself of wrongdoing. What the W.H and progressives are hoping is that they can muddy the waters enough, to where the facts get lost in their claims of Conservative politicization of Benghazi. Unfortunately, it has worked, and we'll see if this damning testimony will change the landscape.

Heritage foundation came out with a study today, citing that creating a pathway to citizenship similar to what is being proposed would add over the long-term over $6 Trillion to the debt. That's an awfully large and scary number. However, Paul Ryan, Conservative American Enterprise Institute, the CATO institute, Grover Norquist, Americants for Tax Reform, the Concord Coalition and Douglass-Holtz Eakin president of the American Action Forum have all come out and said that the Heritage Foundations study is a bunch of poppy rooster. In any case, it appears that there are many more studies that show that it will either be a wash or a positive for the economy than what the Heritage Foundation's report shows. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/05/06/conservative-leaders-slam-heritage-for-shoddy-immmigration-study/?hpid=z2 Also, it's kinda funny how the Heritage Foundation bemoans the CBO when Dynamic scoring isn't applied in "conservative" budgets, yet they don't apply Dynamic scoring to make their case regarding Immigration Reform. Sorta makes them hypocritical on this issue....Probably more so than that, it makes them extremely ideological, which tells me that they aren't motivated on the economics of this issue as much as it has to do with some other ulterior motive.

I'd be interested in hearing the opinions from the LGBT crowd regarding the CCM models of CO2 for the HIGW, maybe BFBF can get to us ASAP on that with an ETA PS BYOB

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/economy/050313-654674-retail-workweek-3-year-low-on-obamacare.htm?ref=HPLNews#ixzz2SX1AUssv

As some of you may know, there is a stiff penalty for any business that employs over 50 people that doesn't offer health insurance to it's employees. For many businesses, this is a "game-changer", they simply cannot afford to absorb these sort of costs. So many businesses are lessening the hours from their full-time employees to part-time, you hear this not just from an anecdotal level, but now you are beginning to see some evidence that supports this in some of the more recent job numbers. In the latest BLS report, Part-time employment rose this month by 441,000 as private average weekly hours fell 0.2 to 34.4 hours and average weekly earnings fell from $824.52 to $821.13 due to fewer hours worked. Then of course you had Obama economic supporter Mark Zandi admit as much now you have left-leaning Jared Bernstein do so as well. Jared Bernstein: Obamacare Will "Boost Number Of Jobs Higher Because Of More Part-Time Jobs"

It's not " a year study".

I'm not opposed to caring for the poor, as a matter of fact I endorse it, just that it needs to be done much more efficiently and effective than the status quo. As I mentioned earlier, whatever the case may be, it's clearly not working.

Whatever the case may be, the findings show based on the large sample size they conducted, that Medicaid hasn't helped people in an appreciable manner in some of the major metrics they use to determine the effectiveness of coverage. From my perspective, it IS worth noting, considering the major cost that is being spent at both the Federal and State level. It seems quite obvious to me at least that there needs to be major reform with Medicaid. If you are going to spend this sort of money, specially considering the burden it creates at the State budget level (In which they have to balance their budgets, which means it comes at the expense of jobs, services etc), then they should be worried with these findings. You don't want to throw good money after ineffective programs right? And now couple that with the monumental expansion of Medicaid that we will be undertaking because of the ACH. It certainly gives pause. Don't you think?

Interesting study that I read about today in the Daily Beast. Study: Giving People Government Health Insurance May Not Make them Any Healthier The findings are fascinating, if you have the time and have an interest in this, I'd read the rest of the article.

Probably

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/297493-white-house-gay-rights-provision-preferable-but-not-necessary-for-immigration-bill#ixzz2SAy6F7uz

I guess we're just not gonna agree.

I and I'm pretty sure the vast majority of NFL "experts" and GM's disagree with your assessment, which is that Fitz played at an "AVERAGE" starting NFL QB level over the past two years. I'm not talking about performance. I mentioned "pedigree", arm strength and mechanics. That has always been on full display for teams to see.

So you are saying that Fitz deserves to be paid an NFL starting QB's pay? Is that what you are telling us?

It's as if you didn't read hardly anything I said.

It's not harping, Kelly made a comment and I just simply pointed out the Fitz signing and then that's how the discussion ensued. Also, in regards to Kelly's comment that he would of cost more. I just don't buy that, it's not as if Fitz's lack of arm strength, pedigree and mechanics would have been a secret that they would of uncovered after wards, it was right there for everyone to see.

They did panic and to believe they didn't is absurd. See how I did that? But let me delve into this a little further. So he was paid at a level of "19th best QB in the league" and your basis of support is that his stats backs this assessment? What after 5-6 games? Even if you take his full year's stats, which is silly to judge by considering that the contract was offered less than halfway through the season, it was clear by just going by the eyeball test that he wasn't a starting caliber NFL QB. You see, my main criticism was the process and philosophy of how the contract came about. It would have been one thing if he had a pedigree of a blue chip prospect or anything remotely considered to that level of play coming out of college. He wasn't. To give a contract offer at the caliber of an Average starting NFL QB to someone with no pedigree, very limited arm strength, questionable mechanics and an extremely limited body of work to judge him by, was clearly a flawed decision on his part, which again goes back to the process and philosophy that I was just talking about. This is not a hindsight argument. The more appropriate and logical approach would have been to wait till after the season to evaluate the player before the contract would have been offered.