Magox

Unreal. How we forget so quickly. Barney Frank, Schumer and Maxine Waters shouldn't have any credibility in anything of importance for the rest of their lives.

That is a concern. Having said that, for his size, he looks as if he has great speed and vision. Plus his ability to plant and cut is pretty phenomenal.

So he gets the blame if we draft a dud, but he shouldn't be there to see who we draft?

That is pretty damning. While we're at it, remember this golden oldie? "I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward." Or the infamous "I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness [in the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] that we have in the office in comptroller of currency or office of the thrift supervision. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing." Ah, the good ol days.

I think that pretty much nails it.

There are a lot of places to pin the blame, but undoubtedly the government was one of the main culprits in this whole disaster.

I'd sure like to have him as our second round pick. However, I just don't think he'll be there.

I didn't say I was for or against. What I said was that we need to do extensive studies, done by honest brokers who can determine the impacts good and bad. You scoffed at that suggestion, which makes you an ideologue.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/02/obama-helping-rich-only-that-binds-gop-together-157542.html?hp=f2

If there is anything that I wouldn't want to be, it would be a Crayonz deciple.

That is why it doesn't make sense to sign Landry. We have too many priorities to take care of and not enough funds to take care of it with.

This post reminds me of this Bob and Danny, guess which one is you

Obama's shame strategy: Demagoguery at it's finest. Sorry, but when it comes down to this, you aren't left with too many options, as I said, you either take it up the ass or fight back.

Unfortunately, when you don't have a dance partner, the options are limited, and he's decided to not take that approach. So you can either take it up the ass or you hammer him back. That's what it has come down to.

The president is applying the strategy of attempting to press the R's through the public court of opinion by doing these campaign style events. If I were him, that would be the strategy I would implement as well, considering he has no ability to negotiate with the opposing party. So if the R's were smart, or for that matter the conservative Super Pacs and groups, they should do tv and radio ad's hammering the president for the sequester. As Bob Woodward states, it was Obama's idea, and the fact that he is trying to lay blame for the sequester on the R's is incredibly hypocritical. This should be easy to pin the president on. The president doesn't have that much leverage on this issue, never mind the fact that it indeed was HIS idea, but the economy is certain to dip and he is the president which means he will shoulder most of the blame.

You can't even do a parody right.

That's pretty much it. The concepts of "fairness" and "morality" should not play any role in economic policy. What it does is take away all logic and substitutes it with one entities perception of fairness. That's simply illogical. That's why I say if there are extensive studies done from honest brokers, and the conclusion is that all in all there are more economic benefits for the economy, then I could be all in for that. Probably the best solution is to have one set of rules for certain types of corporations and another set of rules for small business. Of course I realize that people will circumvent the system, but I would say this general concept should be considered.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. He infringed on the patent, so therefore he will lose. Having said that, Monsanto is a punching bag that liberals love to pound on, so the fact that the good doctor is a super duper lefty who happened to bring this up to our attention, doesn't surprise me one iota.

Yes, it's a false argument to make as one particular poster suggested that the hourly wage should be raised to support working families.

Yeah I think it's gonna go through as well, I mean I hope it doesn't but it appears that there is no real core of support for this to happen. Sure you have the Neo cons that support anything that has to do with the military and there are some reasonable Democrats that realize that this isn't the best way to approach the cuts. But on the flip side, you will always have those Libs that are eager to cut anything related to the military and now you have a new breed of Conservatives that want to cut anything, even spending that R's typically support. So what will happen? Well, if it goes through, the economy will slow down, how much? We'll see. But also it will make us more vulnerable on the foreign front. That is something that isn't being discussed all that much.

What makes this even more sad is that if he were to run for re election, his constituents would still vote him in.

Yep, mismanagement of funds happen all the time, sometimes they bet the wrong way for too long, double down on bets when they shouldn't and then get caught with a liquidity shortage and as a result, positions get closed creating added volatility for a very short time period. When you get the time, look into SEMGROUP I referenced this occurrence the other day.

I remember when Munson said it was a good idea to short gold five years ago and then repeated it again 3 years ago. He knows what he's talking about.

Yes, really. There is a huge disconnect with the larger American corporations and small businesses. Corporations are doing great, they've been able to benefit off of globalization from cutting costs to enjoying the benefits of more global customers, whereas small businesses are hurt more from added regulations to a weak domestic economy. So yes, it is something that there needs to be more analysis to see if it would have adverse impacts. The question of "morality" should never be used in creating economic policy. It's not a variable that can be used to help determine effective policy. It discounts economic logic and in many cases what is done with good intention in the name of "fairness" or "morality" has the opposite intended outcome. Look at the health insurance law from the president, that is a perfect test case. It is going to be an unmitigated disaster. You know how many people are being dropped by their employers health insurance group plan because of it? A LOT Many businesses would rather pay the fine and add extra compensation to their employers to replace their health insurance because they know that the added compensation won't increase at the rate of the premiums. So if there are going to be less people in employer group risk pools, what do you think that will do to premiums? What I'm saying is that I'm not opposed to raising the minimum wage, what I'm saying is that there needs to be honest studies on small business and see what impacts t could have. If it shutters or causes less employment in these small businesses then obviously that's not the route to go.