JimBob2232

Fastest man competition coming up after the commercial. GO MORM!

That was awsome! what was his time? With the 5 second penalty, I wouldnt be suprised if he would have won this thing!

For what its worth http://www.economagic.com/gif/g70016108701...73046489953.gif With the exception of 1997-2001, the unemployement rate is the lowest it has been since 1974.

Economists never know what they want. For every economist who says one thing, i am sure i can find 10,000 who will say the opposite. Not discrediting this particular economist, just making an observation in general. For what its worth, i think you are correct though. Outsourcing is greatly overstated. It makes for good political banter. But because its overstated does not mean its not a problem. Companies exist for one reason: To make money for their stakeholders. If you can agree with that premise, then there is only one reason to move outside the United States...to make more money. In many cases, companies are setting up shop outside the US to gain a competitive advantage there. (i.e. dont need to worry about shipping products from NY to China if you have a manufacturing plant in china). This is fine, and good for the us. The other reason to move, is that it is simply too expensive to do business in the united states, and therefore they pick up shop and go somewhere else. You see this in New York. Look at Kodak, Xerox, General Electric, B&L etc, etc. New York is killing corporations (and individuals) with taxation. As a result, they are moving to southern states, or offshore where it is cheaper.

I may be wrong, but I dont think you will see many june 1 cuts this year. With the CBA expiring, you can no longer spread dead cap money over multiple seasons. Someone correct me if i am wrong.

It doesnt...In fact i am not sure it IS even meaningful (because therea re alot of wraning signs in our economy)..but the point of my original post was to see how liberal kool-aid drinkers could justify a tax cut + bad enonomy = surplus.

It does if we are overtaxed as a society. Which we are. Cutting taxes on corporations (and those who own them....) allows them to invest more of their money back into their product. This results in higher income for the corporation, and a higher dollar amount of taxes paid. It also means, Mexico and other countries are not as attractive an option to avoid paying taxes. You have to understand one key thing. We tax income in this country, not wealth. The millionaire with 50k in income pays the same amount of taxes as the guy making 50k down the street. (all else being equal). The guy making 50k is probably not going to be saving alot of money. He is going to be spending most of his 50k. A 10% tax cut might give him an extra 500 bucks in disposable income a year, so he has that extra 500 bucks to spur the economy. But the guy with 1,000,000 in the bank looks at that 10% cut in income tax rate, and decides, maybe its time to open a small business, hire some employees, and ALL of that is new revenue to the government, including the multiplier effect. The same is true for massive corporations. The cut in taxes encourages them to invest in new ventures. I hear what you are saying however. We are not discouraging companies from moving offshore. There are 2 big reasons companies are outsourcing. 1) Taxes are killing them, and other countries offer much needed tax relief and profitibliity and 2) They want to be closer to growing markets and gain a competitive advantage. #1 is a problem, #2 is understandable and should be good. However, im not sure how you can say, with our current tax structure, tax cuts for "the rich" causes alot of money to go offshore, while tax cuts for the "middle class" causes the money to stay here, when we have already established the problem is too many companies are moving offshore. I hate this tax cut for the rich nonsense, beacause thats all it is. Nonsense. 10% of a million dollars is alot more than 10% of 50k, agreed, but its still 10%. Get over it. Its not fair that the "rich" pay a greater percentage to start off with, but thats another discussion. Define rich for me anyway...

Per ESPN

Yeh, if your house has lost value over the last 5 years...wow... But like all things that go up, they must come down. Housing is no different. The stock market crash of 2000 was bound to happen. Market fundementals dictated it. People thought "its a new economy, cant happen here" and got burned. Housing is the same way. It went up too fast for too long. Now, there will be some resistance to lowering prices, unlike the stock market, due to people not wanting to sell their personal residence for a loss, but investors, and people who foolishly took out ARMs they cant afford...its going to get ugly.

Yep. Completely agree here. Although, Its hard to say where that point is for the government. People alot smarter than me need to make that call. If I make 50k a year, and have a 225k mortgage and a 25k car loan, im 250k in debt, 5 times my anual income. if the government brings in 2.5T, is it reasonable to assume they can also support 5 times their annual income, or 12.5T in debt? If so, is 8T really a problem? And how much of a benefit are we derriving by carrying this debt? I cant make that call, its an interesting debate though.

First of all...its here, a reuters news story http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle....OCKS.xml&rpc=23 Second of all, why, if it appears on drudge, is it wrong? Would a bloomberg story make it more believeable to you? http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...id=aYuRPT2vssbU As for Bob Lamb, I have no idea where you were taugh economics, but I know where I got my MBA from, and its apparent you are not familiar with the term "economies of scale"...but I'll let that slide. I also know, that my job entails managing the finances of a 350 million dollar budget for the federal government. It is a VERY complicated thing to do, and its not even a measurable portion of the 2.5 trillion dollar federal budget. So yes, balancing the budget is extremely difficult, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt try to do it. Actually Bob, I have no idea what points you are even trying to make. Goverment can print all the money it wants (as if that solves the problem), Wall street earnings disppointing, sales tax increase affecting a ford plant...Where are you going with all this? So...let me see here. Corporations pay taxes quarterly..so January, April, July, October. So those must all be buget surplus months. People are still paying income taxes in February and March, so those must be surplus months too. So now we are up to 6 months out of the year being "expected" surplus months? Come on. In fact, i dont know the exact numbers, but I would suspect the government pays out more money than it recieves due to personal income tax filings each year. Regardless, the final budget number is completly independant of how much funds are recouped by taxpayers. It very well may. Bush has not been the best president for the economy. I applaud him on cutting taxes. We need to cut taxes WAY MORE. But we have to address the growing problems with outsourcing, trade deficits national debt servicing, and (what I think, is going to really kill us here soon), inflation. IF the economy is a house of cards as you predict, and it comes crashing down, its not because of what bush did, its what he didnt do, which he is equally responsible for. Again, I dont have a problem with people critizing bush. There are 1000 good reasons to do so. But when people jump on the wrong issues and show their ignorance, and make fools out of themselves, thats where I draw the line.

Assuming paying off the debt is actually a good thing..but I wont get into that philosophical debate right now.

We have been down this road before, and I dont think I need to rehash the discussion, except to say that you and I agree on alot of issues. For all Bush's flaws (and lord knows there is alot of them), the two that he has done a good job with, IMO, is the war on terror and cutting taxes. Unfortunatly the first was done with bad evidence, and without a proper plan for keeping the peace and the second was not done in conjunction with a sound fiscal policy. HOWEVER...Im sick of hearing how bad bush's economy is...and I take every chance I can get to dispute this fact. Bush is accused of lying all the time, but how is it democrats keep coming up with reasons bush is bad that are disputed left and right (no pun intended) 1) The federal deficit is too large 2) The large deficit is due to cutting taxes 3) The large deficit is due to the poor economy 4) The large deficit is due to increased federal spending 5) The poor economy is bush's fault 6) The stock market is horrible under bush etc. etc. ANYTHING to blame bush BUT 1) The economy is not bad 2) The stock market is where it was when clinton left office 3) Now, we are running a surplus And I still want a lib who believes this nonsense to explain to me how cutting taxes and increasing federal spending can lead to a budget surplus. I think this little exersise might go a long way toward causing you to realize how things really work and not how the democratic talking points want you to think.

Did Sherman interview?

Yep. Thats right. A SURPLUS. So...spending is up, taxes are down, the economy is in the tank, we are fighting too many wars which are costing us way too much money, and we run a buget surplus. Chew on that one for a while liberals... I cant wait to hear the rationale for this!

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle....OCKS.xml&rpc=23 Hmm... "The U.S. budget registered a surprisingly big surplus of $20.99 billion in January as strong receipts outweighed spending, a Treasury Department report showed. " interesting.........now what were you saying about large buget deficits...

NO WAY you take Hali or Kiwi at #8 (barring a suprise combine showing...which i still think you shouldnt go by). If thats the way it goes, take a look at Jimmy Williams. I think J. Williams is the only other guy who should be taken in our slot (possibly Ngata, but im not sold on him). He would fill a need vacated by clements, who could be moved for a #1 or #2 pick. Take williams, trade clements, pick up Marcus McNeil or Gabe Watson later on in the first with the clements pick...seems to solve alot of problems. OR...trade the pick and move down. Someone will want cutler or J. Williams or D. Williams.

result change dramatically if you use XL and III

Hmm...and who would play quarterback? Testaverde?

They had 9 last year without TO... Now if they can get a QB...watch out.

I hate the term felons...because the first thing that comes to my mind is the falcons, cuz its spelled close to felons. Then I think of the raiders, and then realize its the dolfins. Sometimes I even think of the ravens because...well...they are.

1993...sorry too easy.

Well, I hope you enjoy the game none-the-less. Kick back and relax, if only for a couple hours. And keep up all the good work you guys are doing over there!

Hmm...I got chastized and called a "newbie" for a "nm" once...apparently all the veterans here say "belinda" instead. SDS must be a newbie too. ***BLINK***

No, No it didnt... The market DID NOT CRASH UNDER BUSH. It crashed under clinton. Bush has not had a booming market, but it has not been as terrible as people seem to think it is.