Magox

I would hope, real cheap.

I would tend to agree with you... However, I would assume he would be playing the traditional pass rushing OLB as opposed to Bradham, and he doesn't have much of a history of getting after the QB.

Hold on a second, you mean all those attack ads about the war on women, Romney being a vulture capitalist, Bain capital responsible for killing people, questioning whether he paid taxes or not, shipping jobs overseas wasn't a large reason why he won the elections.? Or Romney's stance on immigration? Please, let's not delude ourselves, exit polls actually showed people liked Romney's plans for the economy more so than Obama. So your point is invalid What I find to be funny is that the very same people who parroted all these attacking talking points from the president, "Bain Capital, tax cheat, ships job overseas, war on women etc". Now gloss over the central theme of their election campaign which was to discredit their opponent, all say that it was because he won the war of ideas. Puhleeaase

Does the 4M signing bonus get prorated throughout the contract?

How does that reach $20M?

I believe that sounds about right to me... If he were on a decent team, he'd most likely be a pro bowler.

Great!!!

I saw that this morning....

On a mildly related note, it appears that 0 down mortgage loans are back. Amazing that it hasn't even been a full five years since one of the largest melt downs in our history and here we are repeating some of the same crap that got us into this mess in the first place.

So the author of that article you posted is written from a man named Mason Inman....Personally, when I read something I liked to know who wrote it so I can understand from what perspective they are coming from and see if they have an agenda behind what it is they are trying to communicate. Google search on Mason Inman finds that he is a regular contributor for the Huffington . His specialty? Climate Change. He's also communications director for Near Zero, an organization committed to moving the world to near zero green house emissions. The articles he's written for the online National Geographic have primarily dealt with Climate change. So I'd say he has an agenda and you have to take what he says with a grain of salt. The state department recently released their report on the Keystone Pipeline, mind you, the department is headed with people who Obama has tapped to be in charge, and their findings have concluded that there are no environmental red flags, and that if we didn't build it, the Canadians would follow through with their plans without us and that there would be even more greenhouse emissions.

So this is the garbage that is being taught today.

If you were to take the study at face value, there wouldn't be any savings for Medicare. However, Medicaid and insurance premiums would be areas that you most likely would see savings, considering that the vast majority of private health insurance plans are for those under 65 (excluding Medicare supplements) and Medicaid.

According to this study: However it did note this at the bottom And as to my motives: I guess according to this guy, my intentions weren't the "right" ones.

That is some funny **** I mean in a perverse sense, that is logical. It is just one study, but I could see how it would be the case. I may have to rethink my position. Do I value the individuals life or the good of the fiscal health of the country? Decisions decisions

That would be considered to be highly regressive and you would be hard-pressed to get more than a handful of votes in support of it from the Democratic party. So the flat tax is something that we will most likely never ever see here in the U.S

I hear ya, it would be one thing if it only did affect themselves, but it doesn't. Medicare, Medicaid and insurance premiums, are all things that many of us have to pay for, and much of that cost is predicated on the health of others.

This is one area where, from my perspective that I do believe additional taxation makes sense. It's not meant as a punitive or additional revenue measure but more of a "curbing of habit" sort of policy prescription. I believe it to be very fiscally sound. One of the main drivers of US debt comes from the health sector. Not only do we have an inefficient medical delivery system, but we have a country of fat asses, which of course requires more health care spending, both on a personal household to federal/state level. Sugar helps cause diabetes and obesity, which of course leads to a number of other ailments. The more expensive you make sugar, the less we will consume of it, which of course will eventually lead to less medical spending. Additional taxation has caused tobacco usage to go down, so it's only natural that you could apply the same principle to another product. http://usatoday30.us...king/57737774/1

Which is why there has to be a complete overhaul of the US tax code. Lower the rates, close loopholes and provide some sort of incentive to repatriate those funds back home. Key word, incentive.

They're your words professor, and it's there for anyone to see.

Here is what I said: Here is what you said: And yes, the goal is to prevent unemployment from worsening. So there is little room for interpretation, I didn't say or imply "spending" was bad, what I spoke to was the effectiveness of the spending. It is a demonstrable case in study that the more debt you pile on, the more it stunts future growth. Pretty soon we will hit a tipping point with the interest that we have to pay on our debt. That is why it is important to spend wisely and not have this destructive attitude towards our debt that Krugman and his faith based followers of the church of spending have. While I agree that in most down turns, Spending has a place in an economic recovery, it is not the only solution that we have to get us out of downturns. Not all downturns are created equally, in some cases there are no structural issues and a little jump start spending could be all that is needed. In other downturns such as this one, spending isn't all that is needed. I've gone over more than a few times what other things we could be doing, and they include structural reforms. My thoughts are based on hard data and I have no ideology that imprisons or limits what I see. I sometimes support added regulations, I sometimes may support additional taxation, just depends on the conditions on the ground. You on the other hand are a prisoner of your ideology, you are incapable of seeing anything outside your bubble that doesn't fit your ideology. You admittedly believe in virtually just about any kind of spending in a down economy, and you also believe in higher taxation and regulations in just about any condition. It's the same old same old with you. Whatever is part of anything that can be construed as social liberal economic orthodoxy, you endorse it.

I know that you endorse all spending, doesn't matter the effectiveness, just as long as you spend it. As I said before, you are a one trick pony, who knows no other policy prescriptions for growth other than spending.

Fo sho

Just remember everyone, in a down economy, virtually just about all spending is good, doesn't matter how effective or where we spend it, the important thing to remember is that we spend.

Of course it makes a lot of sense to build it, it's a no-brainer. Especially now that the elections are over and the big O already got his money from the ultra 1%er enviro's