Dan

But of course. I'd dare to say, the vast majority of people here have no idea what they're talking about.

How did Bush just try this? I've seen views on both sides of the FDR New Deal working/not working. So, IMO, to use that as an argument is to get into a histrionics debate. How exactly, is this Bill taking from one and giving to another? In fact, this Bill cuts taxes. I don't see any tax increases in it at all. What it does, in fact, is use money that we don't have. So, perhaps you could say we're taking future generation's money. Certainly, you could argue that adding to the federal deficit to this degree does more long term harm than short term good, but that has nothing to do with taking from the rich and giving to the poor. The government has pretty well perfected the art of getting money from thin air. That's why the federal deficit is as large as it is. So to conclude that they're going to recoup the cost of this Bill from higher taxes, implies that they can recoup the costs of all the previous year's spending with higher taxes. I think anyone will say that our deficit is so high, currently, that increased taxes alone will do nothing to decrease it. But, let's just assume taxes aree raised in a year... is it to pay for this bill or to pay for the previous 10 years of spending? Does it really matter? I really have no idea what ruined Japan's economy; but it'd be nice to see some evidence that it was government spending and not some list of other extraneous events. Regardless, just because they couldn't make it work, we should assume we can't either? Again, we really need to know a trillion more details before we could have any real discussion about Japan's economy. Many of those have supposedly been removed from the Senate's version. And the wastefulness of some are entirely up for debate. For example, I don't see forcing the military and government to use electric cars as wasteful. Some American auto maker has to make all those cars, do they not? Tell, Ford that buying 100,000 cars (I just made that number up) is a waste of money and I'm sure they'd disagree. Ok... not enough time to really go through the rest of those reasons. IMO, many of them are highly debatable if not just inaccurate statements. I think there are very good arguments against this bill and/or portions of the bill; I just don't think these are them.

Isn't that pretty much exactly what everyone said last season? How many people thought a QB that hadn't started since High School would lead them to 11 wins? So, much like I won't believe the Bills will have a winning season until they actually have 8 wins; I won't believe the Pats* are falling from grace until I actually see it. Until then, they're still the Pats* and we're still trying.

Interesting thing about Reagan, he's credited as being the ideal conservative Republican President. Yes he cut taxes, greatly, his first year in office. However beginning in 1982, his administration raised taxes every year, he added a cabinet member, and grew the size of the federal government by several hundred thousand employees. So, if I'm thinking right, the best conservative President we've had in 25 years has been Clinton. I'm fairly certain, the number of federal employees shrank during his 8 years and the federal budget was as close to being a surplus as we've seen. Of course, Bush was anti-conservative - growing the government, debt, and spending unlike anything we've ever seen. Maybe this is why I get so confused by the terms conservative and liberal?

You do realize that this whole bank/mortage mess is because of less regulations and the banks went wild. Furthermore, if you get rid of all the "free trade" stuff and increase tariffs, how are you going to have a production and Export economy. Who would trade with us, if we don't trade with them?

When I was much less financially stable, I don't mind saying, I took several liberties with my tax returns for several years. Fortunately, I think you can only be audited for 5 or 7 years, and I'm in the clear on those now. Of course in recent years, I use Turbo Tax and they don't let you fudge much at all.

It's on now! Tickets are bought, reservations are made. Myself, wife, 2 sisters, and the folks are rollin' into town. Canton is in trouble. If you get something put together, by all means, post and let us all know. Not sure what I could do to help put it together, but we'll certainly be interested in any activities associated with alcohol consumption. For those still looking, we all got rooms at the Holiday Inn in South Cleveland, $93/night. My family is flying in on Friday; I may be driving up from Columbus (depends on work). We're still awaiting tickets to the game. Anyone have an idea when they go on sale?

Really? It sounds like more of the same old same old to me... tax cuts on capital gains, increased spending on defense, money to big oil for alternative energy research that never pans out. If that's the core of a stimulus package count me out. I'm not at all sold on the current mess of a bill, but at least it's different.

A most excellent post! The problem I have with the scenario is... I have a job, in fact I'm about to get a decent bonus, but no way am I spending it now. I was going to buy the wife a new car. But, with confidence things will be better anytime soon, I'm going to save that money for the time being. So fundamentally, the scenario is sound, but how do we get th 92% spending again if they think they're on the verge of joining the 8% not working?

I keep seeing people talk about tax cuts, more tax cuts. We need tax cuts to put more money in people's pockets so they'll start spending. Now a tax incentive to buy a new car. Here's my concerns, that I haven't really seen addressed: If I don't have a job, how's a tax cut or tax incentive going to get me spending money when I have none coming in? How can I buy a car when no one is giving me a loan to buy the car (or house)? Yes it seems a tax cut should or could be part of a stimulus plan, but it seems like it should be a smaller portion of the plan. It seems like job creation should be the focus; then once everyone has a job, we could worry about cutting their taxes. What am I missing?

If used to generate a DNA Fingerprint for the database, how is it any different than giving fingerprints when arrested?

I wouldn't go so far as to be crying for joy either. But, it is kinda nice having an elected official admit he made a mistake, apologize for it, and state he's going to try hard to improve. I find absolutely nothing wrong with that and I'm not sure how anyone could. I'd hope everyone could/would own up to their mistakes similarly. Because let's face it, it was a mistake to nominate a couple of those guys. I do agree, though, you don't want a President to continually be apologizing. But, that's mostly because it means he's continually making mistakes not because he looks like a wuss.

The Girls Gone Wild guy?

It's Kentucky. Who cares about Kentucky?

Britney Spears wishes she could fill an 80,000+ stadium. I agree, musically the last few decades haven't been stellar for them (although Steel Wheels was pretty good). However, that doesn't mean they're overrated or without talent. The comparison to the Spice Girls is a good one because that's exactly my point. You have scores upon scores of bands that come out, put out 1-3 albums, with a few "hits". But how many have the staying power of the Stones? If I'm not mistaken, they just had the highest grossing tour of all time, a year or 2 ago? The Spice Girls would generate more buzz, but only because the Stones have never left.

I like it. Or the Niagra "little blue" Pills! We play strong for 4 hours long!

I would say this thread may have become the most laughable one I've ever seen here. The Stones have been touring for over 50 years, have multiple rock anthems, set the standard for arena rock, have sold several hundred million records, with 20ish studio albums, have played for 100's of millions if not billions of people, have influenced more performers than any of us have even listened to, and yet they're over rated. The cynicism here is one thing you can always count on. Gotta love it. I can understand someone saying they don't care for their music but to call them over rated is an entirely incorrect assessment of the band's career.

It does suck having a President that admits to making mistakes and says he wants to do better. I hate that. It would be so much better to have a President hide from the Press and not admit to anything good or bad. I wish all our elected officials would just shut up and always assume they're right regardless of the outcome.

I did like that quote (obviously). If only we could get guys like that to post more, and a few select others to post less.

I thought that interesting as well. So I did some googling. You'd think that'd be an easy thing to find, but not so much. I found one site, a fan site, so not really trustworthy; that says over 30million sold. Then found another Bio on Rockphiles that claims 35 million sold. So, I'm going to put the estimate at closer to 30 million than 12 million - it just makes more sense. I knew she was trained in opera and actually has a very good voice. Did not know about the 4 consecutive grammys for female rocker chick of the year. Either way, Katy Perry has quite a bit of ground to make up, IMO.

That's how you'd describe the greatest Rock n Roll band of all time? Unbelievable. The Stones tour to this day, and still draw more people than any "relevant" act you could list. Not to mention, you (and others) don't want aging rock bands, but you're fine with AC/DC. How does that figure? And as if that weren't enough, you'd be happy with a 40 year old Mo-town band? Unbelievable. The Super Bowl is the single biggest event year in and year out and in the world of music there are perhaps no 2 bigger acts than the Stones and the Boss. Old or not, either one sells out any sized arena any place they play on the planet. Maybe next year we can get Justin Timberlake and everyone can be happy. Honestly, I'm certain people here complain just for the sake of complaining because there's no way you're gonna say dump the Stones in favor of a mo-town band and actually mean it.

I think FO staff even get them. Also, I recall a story where Polian gave one to Edge when the Colts won. Despite Edge going to Arizona, Polian said he was instrumental in the team that won the SB.

Come on, now. Really?

I agree. Lynch definitely got his yards on his own. No doubt. I know it's unpopular, but IMO, the run game improved because Preston replaced Fowler. I'm not saying Preston should be our starter next season. I'm just suggesting that he seemed to be better than Fowler. Funny, but since Jauron got his stay of execution, I care much less about any of it. I have zero confidence that any player via the draft or FA will change a single thing. We'll still see a marginally competitive team that folds like a cheap suit in the tough games. Maybe I'm wrong, but until this teams proves otherwise, next season is something I'll watch but have no hopes for.

I think that's a good point, and we'll never know the reality. But, I could easily see the Obama team calling them up and giving them the option to withdraw with dignity or be removed in disgrace. Allowing someone to save a little face is quite common. Either way the person is out and probably for the best. I would agree, it does speak to the transparency of the process. Regardless of how these problems are coming out, the point is they're coming out now rather than 3 years from now. Congress can debate them and in some instances look past them, in others, not.