Magox

Sure, I'd agree that there could of been a better political choice, such as Rubio... But that's not what we were talking about.

There is a difference between drag and what did he add? Wisconsin is a historically blue state, all he added to the ticket there was a few points... So the better way to have phrased would have been, "Ryan didn't add anything to the ticket" Instead what was said was " i'm not sure ryan was as big of a mistake as palin but it was close" Only a loony leftist would agree with this statement. So I'm assuming you do?

Do you want me to post to you the exit poll data? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57546031/early-exit-poll-60-percent-say-economy-top-issue/ Which ONE of these four issues is the most important facing the country? (CHECK ONLY ONE) Total Obama Romney 5% 56% 33% Federal budget deficit 15% 32% 66% The economy 59% 47% 51% http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012-exit-poll In other words, it wasn't the vision why they voted for Obama, it was that they successfully portrayed him as an out of touch, aristocratic, tax cheating, war on womening corporate fat cat. Also, no one in their right mind agrees with you in regards to Paul Ryan being a drag on the ticket. No one.

Wow! "keep letting the rich bank accounts siphon a bigger and bigger chunk of available money from everybody else." This totally disregards facts. Which doesn't surprise me coming from the source. According to the tax foundation which compiled data directly from the IRS, the average rate paid by the top 1% in 2008 paid Adjusted Gross Income of 20% of the total revenues collected. In 1980, the top 1% paid 8.46% of total revenues collected. Since 1980, the total share of revenues from the top 1% has been steadily increasing, with the exceptions of down years caused by recessions. Also, speaking of the progressivity of the US tax code, the top 1% pay after deductions 24.01%, the bottom 50% pay 1.85%. As income rises, the level of taxes paid as a percentage increases. Also at the bottom of the page, if you look at the progressiveness of the tax code, you will see that ever since 1980, the US tax code has steadily gotten more progressive. In 1980 the top 1% paid a rate of 34.47%... The bottom 50% paid a rate of 6.1%, which means that the 1% paid a little less than 600% higher rates than the bottom 50%. In 2009, the top 1% paid a rate of 24.28% and the bottom 50% paid a rate of 1.85%, which means that the 1% paid more than 1300% higher rates than the bottom 50%. In other words the US tax code has exponentially increased the progressiveness of taxes paid. http://taxfoundation...come-tax-data-0 Read it! Which means that you are totally full of ****, and once again just shows that you are talking out of your ass. Also, "siphoning" the "available money"??? What the !@#$ does that mean? Who's money is it? and from where are they siphoning it from? You are right about one thing, it is like a mental disease.

Yes, because reforming the entitlements is a really popular poll tested thing to do.

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.