Magox

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?

Not so sure about that. I think you may be over-generalizing here. Your assumptions are based on an "all things being equal" physiological aspect of it. It is very possible that one person's body reacts differently to the same sort of external conditions than another person. Also, I would argue that the typical carry from Ladanian is quite different than the "dish the punishment" carry from Turner. I would think that Turners style of running, the number of carries he had and his physiological makeup all contributed to his drop off

We can discuss the merits and pitfalls of the "for profit" health care industry. Without a doubt that the innovations in medical equipment, drugs etc have improved as a result, but I also would agree that it has contributed to medical price inflation. But as you can see from his view, there are many other factors as well and no where were the private insurers listed as one of his problem areas. If anything he sympathized with them and the doctors. But my whole point was to point out the absurdity of meatface's post. Which what he said was what "he got out" of this article was that we need the public option. That's fine if you believe we need one, but don't chime in and say that the article suggested a need of a government run private insurer to compete when the article had everything to do with the delivery and charging methods of the PROVIDERS

Did anyone happen to catch what brill said about the ACA? He said what it did help solve is who will pay for it? What it didn't solve was to effectively bring down health care costs. That's pretty much what I've been saying from day one

Those examples he cited there are the drug and medical device makers. He also believes that hospitals and their administrators and their methods of charging patients are large factors. Yet again, that has nothing to do with the entities that end up paying for these inflated charges.

Also, the "health care industry" is not primarily the health insurance industry. It encompasses a whole swath of sectors, all related health care. Again, nothing that the public option would effect in a meaningful way. Did you read his summary conclusion? No where does he mention reforming the health insurers. His solutions were solely reforming how the provides of healthcare should charge. It's simple, he believes that profits are a factor when it comes to medical price inflation. And I agree with that. But again, that has nothing to do with the insurers.

Thats not what the article said or implied. There was very little that had to do with the inefficiencies of the health insurers. The article was about the delivery system of medicine and how it is charged to the public. The only straw man here is your perception of the private health insurers. Maybe brill advocated what you said in an interview, but that is not what he was talking about in the article. Again, this point has nothing to do with the public option Even if you we're to accept your argument that a lot of the problems is based on profit, (which is tremendously short-sighted), but lets say we did accept that, everything brill was talking about was again, the delivery of medicine, not the insurers. So the biggest straw,an f them all regarding this subject is believing that if we reform the insurers that it would help solve the problem of rising costs.

No it wouldn't, again you are talking out of your ass. The public option was simply a government run health insurance agency meant to compete with private health insurers with the hope of being able to create greater leverage in negotiating with hospitals and doctors. just quit talking about this subject, you clearly showed not just in your previous two posts but in the prior discussion that this is one subject that you are clueless on. So there is an 11 page article that is primarily about the way hospitals over charge and what you got out of it was, we need the public option. Idiot

Did you even read the article? If you did, then what you just proved to anyone who actually read and understood it is that you are a complete blithering idiot. The article had virtually nothing to do with excessive profits from the private health insurers but much more so with the inefficient delivery system of medicine here in the U.S. The reason why the public option was ever brought up was so it would provide more "competition" amongst the insurers, because there was a false predominant belief from many that rising health insurance premiums were being driven by greed from the health insurance industry, which of course is false. If you had read the article and took it for what it was worth, you would see that premiums are being driven by..... Drum roll please.......... Health care costs, What the author proposes are ways to limit overcharging from the providers not the insurers, Your post helped confirm what I pretty much thought, which is that you're an idiot

Not quite sure I understand your question. The senate democrats plan wasn't what TYTT was talking about, their plan included some spending cuts, the "millionaires tax" and some stimulus spending.

huh?

Lets not forget that the real story is Woodward's original acct. which is that the W.H came up with the idea of the sequester, despite the president lying to us twice, the first time saying that it was congressional republicans idea and then before the elections telling the American public repeatedly that the sequester would never happen, when responding to Romney's attacks that it would.

That's what the W.H does, successfully I might add. They mobilize their base, which it all began with Plouffe and co. when they sent out tweets attacking Woodward, and now all the drones follow suit.

From Andrew Sullivan Talk about eating their own