Magox

Coming from you, doesn't surprise me in the least. Leftist douchebaggery at its finest.

Got Lucky? !@#$ing idiots

I guess I would say that first off, I disagree with the premise of your first statement, which is that Levitre wasn't "elite". I keep hearing some people say that, and I honestly don't know where these conclusions come from. Fine, we can disagree that he wasn't "elite", but he certainly by just about any metric has been one of the better guards in the league. He is durable, never misses a game. He didn't give up many sacks and the past two years the YPC behind him has been near or at the top of the league. If you want to dismiss these stats, fine, but from my point of view, just going by what I visually saw, he has been a beast. So I guess that is the crux of it all, valuing his level of play. I consider him a top 5 guard, and some people don't. In any case, if Levitre is earning $8M a year, and we go by what you and a few others believe, that Warmack will be better, which is a big if, but even if I were to accept that judgement, what would Warmack's potential value be if he were to live up to his expectations and look to get paid with his first re-signing contract? If Levitre is getting $8M, then surely Warmack an "elite" guard in today's world would be getting $9M a year. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I would go ballistic if they drafted a guard at #8. Not because I'm opposed to drafting a guard that high up, but that they obviously decided not to pay a guard the going rate of an upper echelon player of his position, which means it would make absolutely no sense whatsoever to draft one that high up if they have no intention of paying a guard at top caliber level.

Yeah yeah, sure

Where gun loving nuts and Monsanto hating anti corporatists meet, it's quite the romance.

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/7421/matt-barkley

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/245479-fcc-eyes-tax-on-internet-service#ixzz2OmiAGYML

It was a fantastic result and puts us in good position to qualify for the WC. In regards to the enjoyability of a 0-0 game, well, that's just how many soccer games are, many people appreciate the game within the game, and many here in the U.S don't. It is by far the most popular game on the planet, and there is no close second but here in the U.S it will never come close to being our top sport, and that won't change. The best the American team can hope for is to improve their youth league infrastructure, specially at the ages of 13-21 and continue to develop our domestic professional league. We've become a respectable team, which is a feat in itself, I mean it was only a few decades ago that we were the laughing stock of the world. So I'm pleased about that. We just need to develop some world class finishers, I'd say the best scorer that we've had over the past few decades was McBride and Donovan, and they are both respectable players, but we never have had that elite striker. It will happen, it's just a matter of time.

Yes, you're right, he's just trying to piss you, BuffaloedPA, Ryan L Billz and 1Bills fan off.

This is the exact point that I recently made. Levitre was already playing at a pro bowl level, he would of most likely been in Hawaii if he was playing on a halfway decent team, and if we weren't prepared to pay him the going rate for his caliber of play, then it would be beyond moronic to draft a guard at #8.

Kathleen Sebelius argues that once people get their subsidies from the government the insurance premiums for many of those people won't be higher. Well, that may or may not be true in certain instances, however the projected costs of the subsidies were based off a minimal premium rate of growth that was provided by Congressional Democrats on over to the CBO before the healthcare law was enacted. So if premiums rise faster than anticipated in the individual market, as suggested in this report, then the total cost of subsidies will rise sharper than the original projections, meaning that the total cost of ObamaCare will rise significantly exploding the Federal Budget.

This goes waaaaay back. Love the track!

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.