Magox

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.

If Geno were to not be selected by the Raiders or before then, than I think you consider trading up, assuming of course the Bills really like him. In order to leapfrog the Raiders, you'd probably have to give up this years and next years first, and I think there are enough questions about Geno to make that a risky decision. The cost of trading up to the #5 slot would be more reasonable than the #1 or #2.

It's as if you are a parody of yourself

Ok, GG's response was every few years, I say when economic conditions dictate so, and you say never.

Ok, so a little bit

Let's put it this way..... I don't respect your opinion. Therefore I don't give two ***** what you think.

It's been discussed ad nauseum... If you want to look at both sides arguments, you can go back the last few pages. And I just have a generally fundamentally different view of employees than most of you here. Also, this was a response to GG's comment. Since Minimum wage is the law of the land, and you nor anyone will change that, the question was when should there be increases in the minimum wage? GG responded with Since most of us know that the word "few" means a small number, and the number 3 usually fits the bill, I responded with

I'm perfectly fine with having a diametrically opposing view to what you subscribe to.

Don't you know who you are talking to? I mean the guy self-allegedly fired one employee and reduced the pay of his gardener by 30%, because "elections have consequences". He's a real stand up and principled guy.

It's been four years since the last increase, corporations are doing fine and the cost of living has increased.

How so? Specifics please.

Shut the !@#$ already, moron.

That's fine, you don't believe in it, I do. I believe by in large that the market will properly set wages. However I do believe that there are certain times and conditions when their not, and that abuses take place. But lets now talk about the current situation. It's law right? That there is a minimum wage. Now that we know that it will continue to be the law. When should there be an increase in the minimum wage?