caulfield12

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 01:33 PM) Ensure a second term for the incumbent and then fade away? Couldn't you add Ralph Nader's run in 2000 to that list as well? Arguably, Gore won anyway, but those Nader votes definitely tipped it to Bush. Palin's "Tea Party" led to losses in Delaware and Nevada in the Senate, as well as Colorado. Miller didn't even win in her home state. Hilary Clinton has a better chance of being president in 2012 than Palin does.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 10:19 PM) The White Sox have, like, 5 #2 starters right now. It may not be a #2 comparable to the likes of Cole Hamels or Matt Cain, but it's a hell of a lot better than Scott Baker. Except Baker's no longer the #2 for the Twins, he's the 4th guy, pretty much tied with Blackburn and Slowey. Ahead of him are Liriano, Pavano, Duensing and probably Kyle Gibson...although Gibson will probably be in the minors for 2-3 more months.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Nov 15, 2010 -> 10:28 PM) My God, I just watched Antichrist. I don't even know what to say. Fascinating, but absolutely obscene. I can't believe Blockbuster even carries this. Do they also carry The Human Centipede?

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/...cut-the-deficit 16 different articles with suggestions for cutting the deficity and an interactive PDF that allows anyone to go through line by line with different projections out into the future with the consequences of your cuts, both short-term and long-term felt like I was watching that movie "Dave" again with Kevin Kline, but its kinda cool I swear to God, if Obama lets both tax cuts continue, I'll be the first to volunteer and help whoever will run against him...but not even he is that tone deaf I think. I like Senator Warner's proposal, extending the tax cuts for the middle class, cutting the "rich" income level down to $ 1 million or less (personally, I think it should be no more than $500,000) and letting those tax cuts expire in 2-3 years down the, but, most importantly, putting in at least $650 billion of pro-business oriented cuts/credits that would engage corporate American in developing a plan that's suitable and will actually create jobs and more certainty going forward. I hate that stupid argument about how all the small business owners are going to be killed. Point of fact, only 2% of businesses/taxpayers would possibly be affected, and that's something like $700 per month at the most, we're not even talking about losing half an employee. If he really had guts (Obama), he'd let both of them expire and fight the GOP tooth and nail about the upper income brackets, but he made such a big deal about the tax break for the bottom 98% that he couldn't conceivably do that. And I don't think he wants to be the president who "raised taxes" (letting the cuts expire and going to Clinton levels, when we were actually balancing the budget) because he won't get any credit for lowering the deficit or balancing the budget if the unemployment rate remains in the 8's or 9's. It's possible to be pro-business without caving on the tax cuts for the rich, they're not mutually exclusive. Millions of dollars from private hedge fund managers went to the GOP this last election cycle to protect their tax rates going forward...you have Erskine Bowles making $350K+ per year on the board of a Wall Street bank telling middle class Americans they can go screw themselves and by the way, work for an extra 4 years with less benefits. The fact of the matter is that while life expectancy has risen, it has certainly not risen for blue collar/labor/industrial workers during the last 20 years.

I can't remember if 500 Days (of Summer) was 09 or this year...but that's another movie in the Scott Pilgrim genre (minus the cartoon/fighting elements) that was pretty enjoyable. I think it's one of those movies that's either sort of appreciated or loved, especially depending on your feelings for Z. Deschanel. Kick-Ass also has similar stylistic points, but my God that movie is violent (moreso than Machete, arguably), especially with such a young teenager starring in the role. But it has kind of put her on the map. Anyone heard anything about Black Swan, the new Natalie Portman movie?

Not to mention Anthony Webster (to Rangers in Everett deal) and Jeremy Reed as part of the Garcia deal. Heck, going back further, I remember a time in the 80's when I was excited about Kenny Williams and Jimmy Hurst.

Talking about morals...many companies that have to do business in China are forced to give up proprietary information in order to do business or open up a factory or sell their products to the growing Chinese domestic market. So, as a company, you eschew that market at your own risk...otoh, it's a death sentence, because eventually the Chinese will copy all your products and make them for half the price, two years later a "new" Chinese company arrives on the scene and you're no longer needed. Goodbye, here's the door. How would an American company fight that? Look at the google.cn battle, for example. Some German companies like Siemens have been trying to fight, but it's a hard one because the world is now starting to revolve around doing business with China. You can see the current administration and SE Asia pinning their hopes on India and the US as a counterbalance. The example of doing business in Latin America, it's one of those things you can argue that "American business practices" should be imposed, sure. But the culture of the "buscones" or "middle men" doesn't just exist if foreign countries, look at all those same situations with agents and unsavory recruiters and boosters getting involved with college athletics, the summer basketball camps and Reggie Bush or Cam Newton come to mind immediately. You don't think there's money changing hands there in the same ways it was in the Dominican, you're crazy. It's simply because baseball is the only way out for many Latin youngsters that don't play soccer (especially in the Dominican)...and buscones have a strangehold on access to the talent. Think of it like stock brokers. Twenty years ago, there was no etrade or ameritrade or programs that could allow you to circumvent the process. You absolutely HAD to pay someone else if you wanted to buy a stock. Well the same way with signing any good player in Latin America.

Well, there was also a tremendous amount of revenue coming in from capital gains taxes during those years too...and I think the defense spending levelled off (remember the idea of a "peace dividend" at the end of Cold War?), but I'd have to look at the actual figures again, seems like they went down or at least didn't continue their previous 1981-1992 rate of increase but I could be wrong.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 11, 2010 -> 09:46 AM) See that everyone. GW's fault. Not the baby boomers soon to retire and the lack of workers to fill their place. GW. LMFAO! So the Baby Boomers aging over the last 30 years is the cause of the deficit? Sure. This is from the Heritage Foundation •President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion. (probably because he had to rescue the carmakers, AIG, half the banks, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc.) •President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course. (wow, and all those bankers are so thankful) •President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund. (the CBO says the new health care plan will SAVE $700 million, guess they forgot that part) •President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it. (Obama's school reforms are more Republican than Democrat) •President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent. (shame that we are trying to help the middle class that Reagan, Bush and Bush Jr. tried to destroy) •President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend. (WHAT???????)

There's no way a billionaire should be paying the same in SS deductions as someone at $106,500. That's insane. They're proposing getting rid of the deductions for mortgages and health insurance (I think) but it feels to me like the majority of burden is still on the middle class. Of course, the rich will seize on this indexing/means testing as a way to make it about populism, "stealing" or redistributing from the upper class and give to the poor...but we won't even have much of a middle class left in 10-20 years the way things are going right now. Let's face it, SS is funded for 20-30 years and there's currently a $2.5 trillion surplus in that area...if they wouldn't keep borrowing from it. So basically, we're all being told we'll have to work until we're 69 or take reduced benefits because 1) Bush's tax cuts that weren't offset by any spending decreases or cost controls, 2) the unfunded Medicare prescription plan that was written by the pharmaceutical industry AND 3) two wars that are making us less safe and costing thousands of lives...we pull back our troops from AFGH, that's $300,000,000 right there. But you know they'll seize on this silly earmarks issue, when the GOP to this day won't give them up. I don't think DeMint will get 24 votes to move it forward on the agenda.

It's funny...I don't know if his story is symptomatic of the real estate boom or bust or the companion story for Wall Street: Club Burn Never Sleeps. At one point, the guy had something like six houses in Phoenix, and then the gay bar. It seems he really got in over his head and got desperate for money. Not the first time, it won't be the last time. Just shows what financial pressure and/or greed will do to you. He still could have made millions of dollars in the game of baseball and now he'll end like Ethan Suplee in Unstoppable. The guy had child support payments, supposedly a $570,000 loss on his club (disputed), undoubtedly some real estate losses and quoted a $7.25/hour salary on court documents. http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/sports/Depo...or-Gay-Bar.html Still not as bad as former 1989 Michigan and NBA star Rumeal Robinson, who, among other things, sold his mom's house from under her... http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5548218

Very early Top 10 List for 2010 (especially considering that I haven't seen many indie/art house type movies since I've been in Thailand and China virtually the entire year) Note, this also isn't an "Oscar List" per se, just my favorites, fwiw. I haven't seen Inside Job, Waiting for Superman, I started watching Animal Kingdom on the net but the bootleg copy, the Australian accents are very tough to pick up because of the distortion. 1. Inception 2. The Social Network 3. How to Train Your Dragon 4. The Town 5. Toy Story 3 6. Winter's Bone 7. Shutter Island 8. Unstoppable (see review below) 9. Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World (for creativity) 10. Despicable Me and Megamind (haven't seen Megamind yet, but I've heard they are very similar "anti-hero" movies, saw Despicable Me in 3D and thought it was very well done) As far as Unstoppable goes, I read one review that spent thousands of words criticizing Tony Scott's erratic and choppy, let's say testosterone-laden film style. I don't know what the hell happened, I guess this dude was sitting in the front five rows, but I thought it was a very good action movie, right up there with Inception, but obviously not so intellectual or twisting in terms of the plot. I never once felt sick to my stomach or disoriented or annoyed with the film...so I chalk this up entirely to the reviewer's sitting too close to the screen. Chris Pine shows signs of having a lot more acting chops than the likes of Freddie Prinze, Jr., or Josh Hartnett. He really held his own against one of my favorite all-time actors, Denzel Washington. Rosario Dawson was also strong in a supporting role, another fave of mine. Another common thread in the reviews is the timeliness of this movie. That it reflects the crossroads of American history, especially since it's taking place mostly in Pennsylvania and similar Rust Belt cities...these cities were once the heart of manufacturing, but the jobs have basically disappeared. It doesn't belabor the management/suits as the bad guys (except for Kevin Dunn's character), but it does put forth the idea of the selfless American hero as perhaps something that's disappearing, American exceptionalism, whatever you want to call it. In that sense, it was a bit like Seabiscuit or the Russell Crowe boxing movie, with the heroes being on the ropes but not down for the count, so to speak. In some ways, it also reminded me of the Spielberg movie Duel, it's a VERY simplistic plot, obviously....but it keeps you guessing and almost on the edge of your seat for most of the movie once the suspense starts building with the train getting lose.

They're all about the same issue....how will it be possible to cut the deficit while simultaneously lowering taxes and NOT severing defense or entitlements.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/opinion/07kristof.html?hp http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/opinion/07sun1.html?hp http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/opinion/07rich.html?hp

There's just no way we got after Martinez. The budget numbers don't work for him, even with Konerko and AJ not brought back. They especially won't work if they're trying to extend Danks.

For further reference on this point, see movie Patriot, THE...although the history is way off, the general idea or conception is basically right. And yes, Mel Gibson's an ass.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 11:59 AM) It depends on how you count charitable. The U.S. gives the most but the U.S. is also the wealthiest by far. When you ratio the total amount given to indicators of how wealthy the nation is, the U.S. drops significantly down the list. But does that study take into consideration charitable donations to churches, which is a HUGE percentage of total charitable giving in the US? I haven't looked at the methodology, but it LOOKS like from the title that it's talking about donations/assistance to NGO's, or possibly organizations like US AID? I guess it depends on the definition of "development assistance." To qualify as official development assistance (ODA), a contribution must contain three elements: 1.) be undertaken by the official sector (that is, a government or government agency); 2.) with promotion of economic development and welfare as the main objective; and 3.) at concessional financial terms (that is, with favorable loan terms.) Thus, by definition, ODA does not include private donations. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the countries giving the highest amounts of money (in absolute terms) are as follows:[1] 1. United States - $28.67 billion 2. France - $12.43 billion 3. Germany - $11.98 billion 4. United Kingdom - $11.50 billion 5. Japan - $9.48 billion 6. Spain - $6.57 billion 7. Netherlands - $6.43 billion 8. Sweden - $4.55 billion 9. Norway - $4.09 billion 10. Canada - $4.01 billion According to The NonProfit Times, Americans donated $240.92 billion to charity during 2002, up 1 percent from 2001. Total giving represented 2.3 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP). It has remained above 2 percent since 1999. Corporate donations grew 10.5 percent (8.8 percent when adjusted for inflation) from the revised 2001 estimate of $11.03 billion (The NonProfit Times, Posted July 1, 2003). Donations from living individuals remained the largest portion of the giving pie, representing more than 76 percent of all giving. Donations by foundations (not including corporate foundations) experienced a 1.2 percent decline (-2.7 after adjusting for inflation). Donations to foundations fell even more dropping an estimated 14.3 percent (-15.6 percent after inflation.) (ibid). The single largest sector that received donations were religious organizations. They received $84.28 billion, representing 35 percent of the total estimated giving in 2002. The next largest sector remained educational institutions, though donations to such organizations decreased 1.1 percent (dropping 2.6 percent after inflation). Education represented 13.1 percent of all estimated donations (ibid). The third were health organizations. Fourth were human services which represented 7.7 percent of donations. 5) Arts and cultural organizations, 6) Public-society benefit organizations, 7) Environmental organizations, 8) International affairs (e.g. peace and human rights organizations) (ibid). Figure 7 below gives a summary of where the donations went.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 07:15 AM) Conservatives are all racist white people who hate minorities and f**s! They want to keep as much money as possible and game the system however they can! They do everything in their power to find loop holes and tax shelters, and still b**** about taxes! They trick gullible middle and lower class whites into supporting their largess and voting for policies that actively hurt their own situation while benefiting the rich! See, we can all come up with ridiculous, stupid, unproductive stereotypes. F--- the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove and Rupert Murdoch, lol. Actually, it's quite genius, to convince the middle class that trickle down economics will actually create jobs and stimulate the economy. Well, I guess if we just wipe out every regulatory agency the "free market" will regulate itself and...oops!!!

But eliminating all earmarks would hardly dent annual deficits. In the 2006 fiscal year, when Republicans last controlled Congress, they approved nearly 10,000 earmarks, a record; the $29 billion cost was about 11 percent of the year’s deficit. But now deficits are much larger, swollen by the recession. In Republicans’ overall policy statements, they have not specified exactly how they would fulfill the promise to cut more than $100 billion from the budget for domestic discretionary programs. That would be the largest reduction in such spending from one year to the next since it began to be tracked in 1962. Once they take control of the House in January, however, Republicans will have to begin work on their alternative to the annual budget Mr. Obama will outline soon after Congress convenes, an exercise that will test Republicans’ unity once the scale of such reductions sinks in for them, for their allies among business lobbyists and for constituents back home. “Neither party dealt with this in the campaign, particularly with asking the middle class to face up to what costs it may have to bear,” said C. Eugene Steuerle, an economist at the Urban Institute and a Treasury official in the Reagan administration. Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats also have promised to work to reduce projected deficits, lest they inflate the already high federal debt to an unsustainable level. But Democrats do not favor major spending reductions until the economy recovers, perhaps by 2012, and even then they would not consider anything near the $100 billion in one-year cuts that Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House speaker-in-waiting, has proposed. “To have cuts that deep — cutting nondefense spending on average by a fifth — will require deep cuts in programs that most Americans think are very important,” said James R. Horney, the director of federal fiscal policy at the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Reductions inevitably would hit education, the national parks, health research and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, just to name a few, Mr. Horney said. “And if you start saying you’re going to protect certain popular programs,” he said, “then the cuts in everything else become really draconian.” The cuts in discretionary programs would not apply to the so-called entitlement programs — chiefly Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — whose rising costs, along with inadequate tax revenues, are driving the deficit projections. Domestic discretionary programs account for about 15 percent of the annual budget, a portion that is not growing. Entitlement programs are 40 percent and national security spending 23 percent; both are expanding. Mr. Cantor, in his document to other Republicans this week, has acknowledged that the debt problem could not be solved without reining in the growth of the entitlement programs. nytimes.com

2) You also have to take into consideration all the high school students who are looking to pay for university, seasonal university students, the typical lawn mowing services in the summer, the 20% that are unemployed or underemployed right now, the elderly that are typically greeters at Wal-Mart but now desperately seeking any way to make ends meet, prison work progams, immigrants (legal and illegal)...it's not just about taking away unionized or city/state jobs, it's much more complicated than just bashing unions for being against such a program (you didn't do that, but it came up somewhere else) Not to mention the fact that (as mentioned below) if single mothers are going out and being forced to do #2, then there's absolutely nobody to monitor or supervise their kids, which will lead to multiple detrimental affects on a society compared to the positives accrued from simply imposing responsibility on people. I taught in an inner city school for four years, most of those mothers would have loved to have high paying jobs, but they resented having to work 2-3 jobs for 60-80 hours per week and then never have any time to spend with their children. I think you need to look at this on a case-by-case basis. 1) One of the biggest problems in the inner city is alcohol and gambling. You're not going to touch on either of these...and you're certainly not going to get the working middle class and rich to pay for drug testing for the poor, are you? I don't think so. 3) Many of these programs like Job Corps and job placement centers DO EXIST. They just cost money. And nobody wants to pay for programs and services...and non-profits, of course, have likewise seen tremendous drop-offs in donations, same with churches. What you really need to do is provided "bundled" services (where you can go to school, receive health/dental/counseling, every possible social service in one place) like the Harlem Children's Zone, but that's a VERY expensive model. It could be replicated, but there's not the political or societal will to do so. It's, once again, one of those times when people are more concerned with their own welfare and don't care about anyone else, as I perceive from reading the various comments about taxes. You would think the US tax rate was 70-80% like in much of northern Europe. We're actually in the bottom quartile in terms of the industrialized world. Whenever this issue is raised, someone will quote the tax rates for a rich person in NYC, but that person is living in Manhattan for a unique reason which isn't applicable to the majority of Americans, and 98% of those New Yorkers wouldn't want to live anywhere else. The whole thing about welfare abuse, WIC, food stamps, it's like complaining about foreign aid or assistance when it's a tiny drop in the bucket. The fact is that the majority of uber-rich people don't pay much or anything in taxes...they often earn salary through stock options and have had zero or low capital gains rates during the Republican years. Most of them have companies set up off shore to avoid taxes. I'm sure the real/actual tax rate for millionaires is often lower than it is for the middle and lower class, maybe 15-20% if the US government and IRS are lucky enough to catch them. QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 02:01 PM) I have no problem with the different taxation policies. But I want the following for those who are pulling services and are not contributing from a taxation standpoint. 1.) If you are receiving benefits from the government ( eg welfare, unemployment, healthcare, etc ). You must submit to scheduled drug tests. I don't care if you are for or against drugs. But if you can afford drugs, you don't need welfare. 2.) If you are able bodied and are cleared by a doctor to work and are receiving the above benefits then you must perform some sort of community work. This will help associate work with benefits as well as to coop some of the costs. Now of course the Unions will fight this, but in reality it makes sense. This can be anything from litter patrol, to cutting grass, to whatever is needed from labor standpoint. You don't want to do this, then you don't get the benefits. 3.) Skills for work program. For those who participate in the above work program, you will get credits for some training to learn skills that will help you get employed. This can also include office based skills and have some college credit involved. Again its about training people and letting them provide for themselves. 4.) People need to actively show that they are looking for a job. My wife's friend's husband was all proud of the fact that he made good money on unemployment. So now he could have "me" time. He could work out at the health club, and watch movies and enjoy life until his enemployment was going away. Then magically he was motivated and found a job. I don't care if you tax me, well I care, but sure whatever. But then in the next breathe don't ask me to be thrilled when I see someone pull up at the local Jewel in their 45k SUV, have a shopping cart filled with all sorts of stuff. Then split the order up into small orders using some on link, some on wic, and then buy your liquor after pulling out a wad of 100's. I see this more than a few times in Darien and its stupid. Sure not everyone is doing it. But I have seen enough abusing the system to say that we need to start to make sure that those who are getting help need it. And if they are getting the help, then they can provide some sort of service back to the community.

I see both sides of the union argument. On one hand, I've been a member of the teacher's union, it can protect teachers who don't deserve to keep their jobs. On the other hand, working in China, you can see how many advantages your employer or the government has over workers here....and your rights are almost ZERO. If you want to know more specifically, start reading about Foxconn (maybe it's Foxcon) and all the workers who have committed suicide in the last couple of years by jumping off the roof? Something like 13, they actually had to erect netting to keep workers from killing themselves. China will have unions in the next 10-20 years too, they're already beginning to institute steps for foreign companies/multinationals. As much as some bemoan unions, would we rather be working at Wal-Mart and be treated like their employees? The funny thing is that I was listening to CSPAN and all these voters were complaining about the unions and the costs of doing business in America, but I didn't hear a single person call in to complain about the bankers and their bonuses. Not one. It's a good trick, that the GOP has workers (middle class) turning on each other but completely ignoring the real bandits who are pilfering the system.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 09:53 AM) Those 30,000,000 people without insurance obviously don't deserve it. See, our economy is really just a sorting algorithm for human value. Poor? Can't afford medicine? Well, you probably did something to deserve that! It's actually something like 47-50,000,000 now. But I was pretty sure not every single American would be getting coverage, but a large majority of those remaining. Would have to double check the stats. It might be 35-40/47,000,000 or something like that. But same thing is true with unemployment, it's 9.6% but actually closer to 15-20% in reality.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 09:38 AM) Why not read some actual criticisms of capitalism instead of straw man versions? There's a lot of question begging in those sentences. If this straw man was true, Democrats wouldn't hold the Senate and the WH. Also, who that has a small paycheck is getting taxed 50%? But I read Ayn Rand and know who John Galt is, lol. I can't wait for that movie. Perfect timing, lol.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 09:13 AM) More class warfare That's exactly what FDR did, just more successfully.. Why do you hate people who earned their money? Or is it jealousy that you don't have what they have? #1 best bet wold be to compromise and extend it for 2 years as-is and revisit it then when the economy is (hopefully) better. (then you're 100% not reducing the deficit and only enlarging it....true? once again, $9.3 trillion of the deficit numbers are due to Reagan and both Bushes, not the evil tax and spend liberals of big government, i just want to see all the Tea Party inductees vote for tax cuts for the rich and explain how that will reduce the deficit exactly, where's the evidence, corporations are sitting on $2,000,000,000 and won't spend it because future demand is so uncertain) #2 Not sure what you would have to gain from this. #3, most the new people campaigned against earmarks, so them staying away from them should be a positive. (and that's the only idea Eric Cantor has put forth, we heard the same from McCain, it's 1/100th or 1% of the overall problem statistically) #4 Why would cutting costs create jobs? They will be happy to give you specifics on things to cut, but I have no idea why you seem to think that that will create jobs. (nobody but Rand Paul has given specifics, and obviously his idea to cut defense spending and end the war in Afghanistan won't go over well....we'll here that we are "surrendering" over and over again) #5 So you want to remove troops, threatening all the gains (if any) so far, just to score cheap political points? Nice. (is our country safer since 9/11? i don't think so, but capturing Obama might come close to guaranteeing Obama a 2nd term) #6 sounds like a Clinton tactic, co-op the other sides ideas and make them your own. Clinton wasn't as bad a President as some make him out to be, but he was kinda scummy. I met him once and shook his hand, can see whay people like him. #7 Never happen #9 That's pretty funny. But he can always get spray-on tan. #8 The dirty secret none of the politicians wil tell you is that unless the government is hiring, they can't create 'jobs'. They can just get the hell out of the way and let businesses create jobs. Make the climate favorible for them to do so, remove obsticles, etc. But unless they hiring themselves, they can't do jack. (once again, besides lowering every tax ever developed, what's the magic bullet idea here? how has that worked under Reagan, Bush and Bush? all it has done has increased the average amount of a CEO salary 10X the rate of the average middle mgmnt worker compared to the 70's while real wages for the middle class are increasing as are hours) #10 Young people get a real shock to the system when they finally leave mommy's house and get outr on thier own. Taxes take on a whole new meaning when you see your already small paycheck being cut in half to fund all these things that make you 'feel good'. (most of the money in taxes goes to entitlements in the form of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense spending and interest payments on the debt....specifically, what programs are you going to cut and how? if you're going to go back to scratch on Obamacare, how are you going to save $700,000,000 and ALSO be able to cover at least 30,000,000 Americans without health insurance currently....explain) #10a Why don't they? (because they don't dare to alienate Hispanic voters....the same reason Rubio has already flip flopped, and why McCain did so)

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 07:56 PM) by the way, as for the next 2, 4 and 8 years... 2 years= Obama wins re-election in a very close, and nasty race. He's helped in part by a 3rd party GOP splitoff after the party nominates a Moderate (Romney) and the tea party nominates their own candidate who gathers 10-15% of the vote nationwide. 44-40-14-2% results nationwide. Meanwhile, the Republicans keep the house (losing 15 seats) and pick up 2 more seats the senate. They knock off democrats (McCaskill, Tester, NE Open (after Nelson decides to not seek re-election), and Conrad) The Democrats pick off Scott Brown and John Ensign. New Senate is a 51-49 split. Bottom line, this country is a near 50/50 division. House lead of 224-211 for Republicans 4 years= Two houses moving in 2 different directions. Nationally, the country is swing back to the Democrats They take back the house by picking off 20 seats to take a 231-204 advantage. The economy is rocking. DOW hits 17,000. However the mathematics of the Senate, moves the house back to the Republicans. They pick off 4 senate seats. (Begich, Landrieu, Baucus and Johnson). Senate is now 51-49 Republican. Say hello to Speaker Van Hollen and Majority Leader McConnell. 6 years= All hell breaks lose. There's simply no way they can nominate Palin. Romney would certainly be the odds-on favorite right now, but he's definitely going to have to show more of a personality, he was so wooden and boring in the last campaign. If he had the charisma of Rubio, and his speaking ability, he would be more dangerous. Daniels in Indiana, Christie in NJ, those guys are getting all the ink now, but not so long ago, Jindal in the GOP and John Edwards were the "heir apparents" and look how far they've both fallen. I think there will be some serious consideration given to dumping Biden in an effort to win back one of those states like Florida, Pennsylvania or Michigan. I'm thinking of names like Crist, Strickland and Rubio if I'm on Obama's team. Delaware doesn't matter. Of course, you can argue the VP choice can hurt a candidate but usually can't help very much. Undoubtedly, it would be hard to get Rubio, but I think putting the first Hispanic (or Asian) on the top ticket would send a strong signal.