Magox

Because he was recently changed and listed on the team's depth chart as a LB... Plus he made a reference to playing LB on a tweet of his and now Tim Grahm just made mention of him as a LB

Good points.

Doubt it

So I suppose you would also agree and support Paul Ryan's Premium support ("voucher") plan as well?

Well, the ingenuity of corporate America and their ability to cut costs and increase efficiency and productivity has a lot to do with it as well. Lets not deny facts, corporate profits are at record highs and soaring. Having said that there is a huge disconnect between Main Street and corporate America. Fortune 500 companies are reducing costs due to more global labor competition and increased technologies that reduces the need for human capital, which of course leads to an even larger income disparity between the white and blue collars. There is no sinister culprit in this development, it's just economic evolution, and to be honest, the U.S middle class blue collar worker may be the victim of this occurrence, but globally speaking, it has increased the standard of living for many people outside the U.S, specially in the BRIC nations. So rather than trying to find a boogie man, which many liberals incessantly do and come up with faux "solutions" such as policies aimed at "evening the playing field" or tax policies designed in the name of "fairness", which is all code for wealth distribution, meant to attempt to solve their perceived inequities by skimming money from those that have and transferring it to those that don't, which of course does nothing to solve our economic woes. We should be concentrating our efforts on true economic reform. Something that will encourage all these displaced workers into more training in future areas where human capital will be in more demand. The best way to do this is by tying unemployment and welfare benefits to job retraining programs. If you don't want to participate and become a more productive member of society, then your benefits get reduced. Simple as that. I think that is fair.

Unless of course you are from la izquierda...

Is Dead

John Podhoretz tweeted that “Paul Krugman says it’s ad hominem to quote columns of his back at him. I agree."

They've been going at it for the past few months now, and it makes for good national debate.

Just curious, where are you getting this info from? I'd like to read that link if you have it.

I don't believe it's a sinister plot contrived from the fed, but i do agree that for the most part the end result is what you suggested. I just think it's a failed economic model that continues to be administered in large doses of the only policy prescription that they know of, which is to prime the pumps, make money cheaper and inflate their way back to prosperity.

I think it would be fair to wait until the beginning of FA to pass complete judgement. This is a busy time of the year for NFL teams, and they may be getting to this soon. Hopefully.

I think there are some developments that have occurred on a corporate level that have been very advantageous to their well-being along with the stock market. However, the disconnect on a macro level to corporate earnings is alarming to say the least. I don't believe it's sustainable, that's just my personal view. I read an editorial in the USA TODAY, and it mirrors many of my same thoughts, even some that I've spoken about here on this site. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/04/federal-reserve--quantitative-easing/1963539/ I can't help but think we just went through one bubble that was partially created through easy money policies, and now looking to solve it with another bubble inflator. I don't know, but that's the feeling I am getting.

I wouldn't. Levitre from my perspective is a much better player than Loadholt. So I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Is it there on solid fundamentals? Do the Fed's easy money policies have a large role? Is it sustainable? Does the divergence between the macro economy and corporate profits matter and if so, should we worry? Thoughts

Why draft a guard this high? I mean if we aren't willing to pay Levitre for living up to his expectations, then why draft Warmack? Doesn't make sense.

Can you imagine? Fisher-Levitre-Wood-Urbik-Glenn

So Krugman and Scarborough had a debate yesterday on PBS. One fascinating gem from Krugman was that in a depressed economy, Krugman suggested that "spending is spending". In other words, even if it is wasteful spending, that it is better to have it then not to have it. That is utterly absurd. To not take into account the "return on your money" factor is obscenely irresponsible. That money is real money, it is money that will eventually have to be paid back WITH INTEREST! That right there shows you that Keynesianism is a religion for Krugman and his cult followers. It's a blind faith that he places on spending, and make no bones about it, it is a blind faith. To not take into account the effectiveness and efficiency of the money that is being borrowed in order to restore the economy is extremely dangerous. When confronted by Scarborough if we should just throw money (spending) at the wall and see what sticks? Krugman basically said yes. The stimulus bill of 2009 fell well short of all expectations, which would include from independent economists, the W.H's team of economists and CBO's projections. The reason being is for various reasons, but mainly for two reasons. One, is that Washington isn't capable of implementing a plan that passes the "return on your money" test. There are too many constituencies, lobbying groups and special interest groups that control where the money will flow that creates wasteful spending. And two, which is what I've been saying for years now, where Krugman and others fail to realize is that this economy requires structural reforms. This economy has structural issues, the notion of just spending more money, any money in any way is a serious flaw that some of these economists have. What doesn't get much play is that when people point to the stimulus bill as proof that Keynesianism wasn't the solution for this downturn, Krugman proudly scoffs " I advocated for double the original amount". Well guess what? When you take into account the original stimulus and the two following stimulus along with the other spending packages we had, it came close to totaling the amount he advocated for. Krugman has been Wrong about a lot, and yesterday his philosophy of unbridled spending was on full display for everyone to say. oh and he got his ass handed to him by Scarborough. Scarborough basically used krugmans own words against himself, and somehow in Krugmans view, those retorts were somehow considered "ad hominem" attacks.

Fine, we'll just throw in Lithuania and Estonia while we're at it.

You guys are something else. We had a sucky ass line for close to a decade, couldn't run or pass block for ****, and now when we finally can do some of both, we want to let our best blocker go.

All this talk of cutting off foreign aid (yes, even to Egypt....Muslim brotherhood...ooh shudder shudder) very short-sighted

You never know. I would think that these sort of changes could maximize long-term shareholder value and sustainability. If the case could be demonstrably made, the power of the shareholder could demand change of culture.

I think it's obvious that it would have to include effective clawback provisions. The question is what and how do you implement it?

I've spoken on this topic some and it's a complicated subject that doesn't have any obvious solutions. I don't believe limiting CEO pay is the way to go for obvious reasons. However, I do believe that there has to be clawback arrangements for corporate malfeasance and negligence. There are too many decisions done by the upper ups, that are too near-sighted that produce short-term gains that put the company at risk. And far too often these beneficiaries of these decisions walk away with their gains, golden parachutes only to leave shareholders and some cases tax payers on the hook. So the question is how and what do you implement to help solve these issues? Well for one, I think that bonuses and CEO pay should largely be paid in company stock with the provision that much of the stock can't be liquidated in X period of time. What this would do is create more long-term accountability. Important decision makers would think long and hard about the decisions that they would make simp,y because it would affect their pay. Now, how do you implement this? Well I certainly don't believe in government mandates. I believe it is something that needs to happen organically, more a culture of a way of doing things. If you begin to see some of the Fortune 500 companies doing this, more will follow suit.

How can you come to this conclusion without knowing at what cost?