Magox

It's a demand issue, back when gas prices weren't quite as high, people wanted the big trucks, now that prices are higher, not so much.

It's a problem. Wages are stagnating and people are spending at the expense of their savings. This isn't rocket science, If you have wages that are stagnating, and the cost of living is increasing, and combine that with increased spending at the expense of piling on of additional credit and exhaustion of savings, then you have a long-term problem. As TPS pointed out, the downturn did alter consumer behavior, and we began to save a little more as a nation, which was a good thing. Those savings have helped spur the spending we are seeing today, and yeah 401k's and stocks are going up, so that is helping fuel consumer sentiment as well, at the moment, but we all know that this run isn't sustainable.

It appears that it is quite possible and at the very least from their perspective, a viable option that is on the table for most of Europe. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9952979/Cyprus-bail-out-savers-will-be-raided-to-save-euro-in-future-crises-says-eurozone-chief.html !@#$ing nuts

I know what you're doing, but just for ***** and giggles, explain.

I was reading an interview today with Reason and Nassim Taleb, author of the Black Swan, he was one of the few to predict with precision the banking crisis that we went through. I think a few of you may find this interview fascinating. On debt On Too Big to Fail I completely agree, I was talking about this the other day, that one of the things corporations should do is create a "skin in the game" culture of compensation packages, that accounts for risk management in bonus, CEO pay. Clawback's would be something that would qualify as a "skin in the game" approach. I was talking with GG about this in one of the recent threads, one of the reasons why I was opposed to the Bank Bailout was because of the moral hazard issue. http://reason.com/archives/2013/03/24/how-debt-ruins-systems/4

I don't quite follow the first part, in regards to COLA adjustments being equal to living wages. In regards to the future fubaring of what I proposed, yeah probably, but that's a separate issue, because if we go along with the assumption that any legislation moving forward is destined to be fubared then what's the point of writing any legislation?

If the drug makers lose this case, the argument for the dissent I'm sure will still be sound, the issue is the interpretation of the law and the setting of future precedence.

I tend to agree with what you usually have to say, birddog not so much.

'Pay to Delay' should be reversed. It certainly from my perspective is a collusive arrangement between the two parties.

Holy contradiction! So you thought the Brill article was great, yet you believe tort reform is meaningless and won't do a thing to lower costs. Where do you think those quotes came from? Of course Tort reform would help lower costs, and the idea that increased competition not having an effect on prices is a purely partisan response. There are some states where the profit margins for health insurers are below 2%, in states such as those, increased competition wouldn't do much to push the needle, however there are some states where profit margins for health insurers are in the double digits. Sometimes I wonder if you even think before you type. This is categorically false. There have been numerous polls and studies that have shown that there will be more doctors that will be less inclined to become PCP because of the health care law. If it was a free market in health care, then you would be right, more demand for their services would mean higher pay. But that's not how it works here because of the Medicaid reimbursement rates, which caps payout. Since there is going to be an explosion of Medicaid recipients in the coming years, that means there will be more services paid out at Medicaid rates, which is not what most doctors are looking for. Actually, that's not the case. They aren't going to cap premiums per se, what they will be doing is mandating that 80% of all revenues collected from health insurance carriers go towards coverage, to help eliminate waste and limit profits.

I would say it could partially be a smokescreen, but more than anything, one on one evaluation.

http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130323/SPORTS/130329591/two-billls=drive-1004 Certainly a reason to give pause.

There is so many things wrong with this bill, from what I anticipate which is an explosion of costs that will be passed down to our Federal debt, to the massive expansion of Medicaid that will crush state budgets 10-20 years out, the rising cost of premiums, the effects on small businesses, shortages of primary care physicians. I honestly believe that the health care law stands a good chance of collapsing on it's own weight and that we will see either a major reform of the bill or an outright repeal.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/03/22/obamacare_at_three_headed_toward_failure.html#ixzz2OInDsXDK

I know that it was mentioned earlier regarding Cosell's endorsement of Nassib, but I didn't see the comments he made. http://www.rotoworld.com/headlines/nfl/258562/cosell-rates-ryan-nassib-higher-than-geno

Not to mince words but the bailout was a package deal, which included more than just banks. But in any case, I agree, I also believe that some regulations are necessary, and I also believe in some rare instances mandates as well. What about No Child Left Behind? or National Minimum Drinking Age Act, the Real ID act, or how about the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)? These are all acts of law that included mandates, and they were done under Reagan and Bush. Again, my point is that like you alluded to earlier and what I've been saying for a while now, not all regulations are bad and that also goes for mandates as well. We just have a differing of opinion on the effectiveness of the raising of the MW, I believe it would be a net positive for the economy, and for me that trumps all, you don't or if that isn't it, it just goes against your principles. I didn't agree with the bank bailout because I didn't think it was the crucial act that stopped the bleeding plus I believe it sets horrible precedence moving forward. But I understood the decision to move forward with it.

Well, then you abandoned your "principles", because standard conservative orthodoxy don't support bailouts. If a company fails, then it shouldn't need the help of the government to prop it up for it to survive, so goes the belief. Listen, I don't blame you for supporting the bailout, although I didn't, but I understand why you and others did. It was a panicky time, and if I was a lawmaker I would have had a hard time not supporting it, but from the sidelines I didn't think it was necessary. The bank bailouts tangibly speaking didn't do much other than recapitalize some of the banks, which wasn't the main problem. At the height of the panic, the main issue was over-night lending, Commercial paper, there was a liquidity freeze and no banks were lending to each other and in order for things to move along, you needed this to flow. So the actions from the Fed, more specifically the CPFF was significantly more crucial to stopping the bleeding than the bank bailouts. Or what about the $16 Trillion that was lent to all the banks and corporations from the Fed during the crisis that no one really knew about until we saw the findings from the audit and GAO report? Seriously, the Bank Bailout was miniscule compared to the actions of the FED. Sure, the bank bailouts provided a psychological boost, which isn't to be discounted, it basically said, the government will do what it takes to back up the banks. I get that. The point I'm making is not all decisions that are standard "conservative" economic policy always have to be adhered to. Your justification for "abandoning principles" is because it didn't cost the taxpayer a dime. Even under your criteria, it still failed the test. According to the TARP inspector general, there is still a loss of $60 Billion and taxpayers are still owed $118.5 Billion. Let's just say it didn't end up costing the taxpayer a dime, you supported it because you thought it was the best course of action. I can respect that, even though I disagree with your view. Everyone who has been on this sight that keeps up knows that I don't generally like mandates, I just happen to think in this instance it is a net winner for the employee and the economy. And you know what? It wouldn't cost the individual taxpayer a dime either. In any case, I don't believe you "abandoned" your "principles", you just stepped outside standard economic conservative orthodoxy believing this was best.

From my perspective, it's fairly obvious, they have intel that indicates that time is running out and that the Iranians are getting uncomfortably close to having capabilities of mass destruction, and the accord he had with Israel is that we wouldn't allow that to happen and that his efforts to attempt to deter this from happening have all but been exhausted.

I read two articles today regarding the ACA and how it would impact small businesses. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-business/health-care-law-uncertainty-grips-old-town-alexandria-cafe--and-other-small-businesses/2013/03/20/64bfd218-8a69-11e2-8d72-dc76641cb8d4_story.html http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorials/obamacare-detriment-hiring-recovery

I'm a big boy, I can handle criticism. Not the first time I "broke ranks" with conservative orthodoxy and won't be the last.

I believe as the kids would say 1billsfan got PWND!

I could of swore you supported the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

I think a debate and differences amongst people who have similar economic views is a good thing. I think from my perspective, what's important is to not have a monolithic view of helping solving our issues, sometimes it's good to step outside the boundaries of the economic orthodoxy that we subscribe to, in my opinion it allows dynamism to flourish, and in the end, most of us want a similar outcome, which is a good thriving economy.

He looks solid, good arm, smart, tough and makes good reads. Certainly has his flaws with the deep ball and sometimes under pressure seems to develop happy feet, but of course all these QB's have their flaws, hopefully for his sake, he corrects those issues. Having said that, I believe Geno is the best of the group and I'm now leaning more towards Manuel as my #2 Qb in this years draft, followed by Nassib then Barkley.