Ed Rendell, Bob Casey and Joe Biden have all reportedly tried to get Arlen Specter to come over to the darkside. Such a move would probably work pretty well for Specter who is likely to face a tough primary challenge having pissed off the far right base. So Specter gets to stay in office and the Democrats get what exactly? Sure 60 seats sounds nice, but that assumes that you are going to get all 60 Senators onboard and that is unlikely to happen. Is Specter the Democrat going to be that different than Specter the Republican?
It is pretty tough work to unseat a Senator. Right now Specter is pretty weak, especially within the GOP. Instead of trying to get Specter to change teams, why not run somebody against him or whomever comes out of the GOP primary? Allowing Specter to become a Democrat only further entrenches him within the state and doesn't promise the Democrats much. The Democratic party has won two straight election cycles promising a lot of things that Specter doesn't seem to keen to go along with. A real Democrat might.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Cutler Wants Out
Cutler says : Trade me.
I remember somebody who is really smart saying that McDaniels and company were going about this all wrong. Oh yeah, that somebody would be me.
Something I find interesting is Ben Maller's take on Cutler going to Detroit.
I just want to add that Ben Maller is an idiot.
I remember somebody who is really smart saying that McDaniels and company were going about this all wrong. Oh yeah, that somebody would be me.
Something I find interesting is Ben Maller's take on Cutler going to Detroit.
Cutler is much closer to Jake Plummer than John Elway. If Cutler ends up in Detroit its 100% that he's the new Joey Harrington.
I just want to add that Ben Maller is an idiot.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Overnight Music
A friend and I were recently talking about bands that we like, but don't really know why we like them. I present you with....
Matt and Kim - Good Old Fashioned Nightmare
Matt and Kim - Good Old Fashioned Nightmare
Earmarks
The national media loves to cover earmarks. I think the big reason is because the media doesn't have to really do any reporting on them other than find one that sounds funny and mock it. It makes for good press because 'government spends 200 dollars on a hammer' type stories always play well. The problem is that the press's lack of reporting leads to a lot of misconceptions on earmarks.
First of all, earmarks account for a very small percentage of spending. The number of earmarks in the recent omnibus totaled 7.7 billion dollars. While that is certainly a lot of cash, keep in mind that the most recent omnibus was 410 billion dollars. Even in the worst cast scenario, that all earmarks are bad, as a percentage it is less than two percent of that total. I'm not trying to make a case against keeping an eye on D.C. and making sure that they spend our money wisely. I just think it is probably better to focus on that other 98 percent first.
However, the biggest problem is that even if we took every earmark out of the omnibus we still wouldn't save a single dime.
With the above in mind, either the politicians and pundits ranting against excessive spending and blaming it on earmarks either don't know this and are stupid or they think you are. I guess it could also be both.
First of all, earmarks account for a very small percentage of spending. The number of earmarks in the recent omnibus totaled 7.7 billion dollars. While that is certainly a lot of cash, keep in mind that the most recent omnibus was 410 billion dollars. Even in the worst cast scenario, that all earmarks are bad, as a percentage it is less than two percent of that total. I'm not trying to make a case against keeping an eye on D.C. and making sure that they spend our money wisely. I just think it is probably better to focus on that other 98 percent first.
However, the biggest problem is that even if we took every earmark out of the omnibus we still wouldn't save a single dime.
This is not open for discussion. An earmark simply is a congressional decision to allocate part of appropriation for a particular purpose. Eliminating the allocation doesn't reduce the appropriation, it simply leaves the allocation decision to a federal department or agency rather than to Congress
With the above in mind, either the politicians and pundits ranting against excessive spending and blaming it on earmarks either don't know this and are stupid or they think you are. I guess it could also be both.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Cutler/McDaniels Part II
For those of you not up to speed.
I find it kinda funny to see the Broncos seemingly doing everything in their power to fuck up their coming season. Say what you want about how Cutler should just man-up and realize that the NFL is a business and that trades happen. I would probably even agree with you somewhat. The problem is that what you get is what you get with professional athletes. T.O. is always going to be the kind of player that in a heartbeat can destroy a locker room. He is also the kind of wide receiver that can win you games, so owners decide to risk his antics. Cutler probably should just man-up, report to Denver and start learning the system and maybe he will. But, right now McDaniels and the Broncos front office is doing a lot to put their season in danger. First, as I said here...
When your quarterback is pissed and no longer trusts you, trying to smooth things over with a conference call is stupid. A conference call shows that you care only slightly more than sending a couple of text messages would. If you really want to smooth things over you get on a plane and go see him. Part of being a coach is dealing with egos and learning with which players you might have to go out of your way to get on your side. McDaniels doesn't seem to know this and/or care.
I find it kinda funny to see the Broncos seemingly doing everything in their power to fuck up their coming season. Say what you want about how Cutler should just man-up and realize that the NFL is a business and that trades happen. I would probably even agree with you somewhat. The problem is that what you get is what you get with professional athletes. T.O. is always going to be the kind of player that in a heartbeat can destroy a locker room. He is also the kind of wide receiver that can win you games, so owners decide to risk his antics. Cutler probably should just man-up, report to Denver and start learning the system and maybe he will. But, right now McDaniels and the Broncos front office is doing a lot to put their season in danger. First, as I said here...
You don't make the kind of move that McDaniels tried to make unless you know for a fact that you can get the deal done, because if you don't your franchise quarterback ends up pissed.
When your quarterback is pissed and no longer trusts you, trying to smooth things over with a conference call is stupid. A conference call shows that you care only slightly more than sending a couple of text messages would. If you really want to smooth things over you get on a plane and go see him. Part of being a coach is dealing with egos and learning with which players you might have to go out of your way to get on your side. McDaniels doesn't seem to know this and/or care.
On Second Thought.....
It was great when all the money from the bank bailout came condition free, great for the bankers that is. However, now that there are some strings attached some are having second thoughts.
And what are some of these restrictions?
Poor babies.
If these guys are giving back the money, then they clearly don't need the money. So the question is why the fuck did they take it in the first place? My guess, and not the answer they would give, is because it was free money with no strings attached and they are greedy bastards that care about their own well being (paycheck and bonuses first) and about the well being of the financial institutions they almost destroyed last.
Some bankers say the conditions have become so onerous that they want to return the bailout money.
And what are some of these restrictions?
Financial institutions that are getting government bailout funds have been told to put off evictions and modify mortgages for distressed homeowners. They must let shareholders vote on executive pay packages. They must slash dividends, cancel employee training and morale-building exercises, and withdraw job offers to foreign citizens.
Poor babies.
If these guys are giving back the money, then they clearly don't need the money. So the question is why the fuck did they take it in the first place? My guess, and not the answer they would give, is because it was free money with no strings attached and they are greedy bastards that care about their own well being (paycheck and bonuses first) and about the well being of the financial institutions they almost destroyed last.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
