mr_genius

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 12, 2011 -> 01:08 PM) The more I see of him and read about him, the more I like Huntsman among the GOP candidates for 2012. Unfortunately, barring a surprise showing in Iowa or some other strange thing happening, he's a long shot at best. Huntsman is probably the worst of all the GOP candidates in my opinion. Fortunately, he has absolutely no chance at getting the nomination.

QUOTE (SoxFanForever @ Aug 11, 2011 -> 07:31 PM) House centipedes. If you've lived in an apartment in Chicago you know what I'm talking about. yea those are pretty bad too

snakes

QUOTE (MAX @ Aug 11, 2011 -> 09:35 PM) The one where homer changes his name to Max Power. That used to be my name here. haha that one was great. the episode where Homer wins an election to be garbage commissioner was top notch.

Ron Paul causing a scene during the GOP debate again

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Aug 8, 2011 -> 03:58 PM) God I hate LeBron. ^ win

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 8, 2011 -> 08:44 PM) The futures are down another 300 points past where they closed at 3:15. Crude oil is trading in the $76's and gasoline under $2.60. So far the SP downgrade is going to be a great thing for the bottom quintile. Obama should run on the promise of additional downgrades.

QUOTE (The Sir @ Aug 6, 2011 -> 07:43 PM) If CW doesn't show up to McDonalds this week, burgers will still be flipped and served.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 5, 2011 -> 09:30 AM) I think it goes something like this: SS...........................................liberal.............Moderate.............Conservative.. ..............Tea Party...............The Sir

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 4, 2011 -> 08:48 PM) Other governments have protectionist policies and subsidize their key industries... not that I'm advocating this but IJS. no they don't!

QUOTE (FlySox87 @ Aug 4, 2011 -> 08:35 PM) The government has no right to infringe on that as long as they are not inflicting harm on their workers. that sounds like protectionism to me. therefore i am against it. a business should harm as they see fit.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 4, 2011 -> 10:41 AM) The sad part is we govern the same way. Short term decision making with the 2/4/6 year election cycle in mind. true

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 4, 2011 -> 04:57 PM) What do you all think of what happened on Wall Street today? i wasn't surprised. i expect more losses. we are yes there is currently a large wave of layoffs. The economy will recover, eventually. not anytime soon, unfortunately. na

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 3, 2011 -> 01:15 PM) http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/free...P#ixzz1TrgxELho the Democrat party is clueless.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 09:15 PM) Jpmorgan team estimates this deal will knock 1.5 percentage points off of 2012 GDP. Of course, that's a decent argument that it won't do nearly as much damage as I think. GDP is going down anyways. mix in a whole bunch of corporate layoffs... not a good situation.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 02:18 PM) I think we can all agree that tea party republicans are acting like immature school children in regard to this debate. Any debate you enter and say, no matter what we will not -- instantly makes you a f***ing idiot in the political arena. And this is exactly what some of these idiots are doing. they are missing a big opportunity to get very big cuts in spending. a compromise for some tax increases in return for huge spending cuts would be well worth it imo

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 12:09 PM) They don't know anything, they assume it. Even if they end up being right, until it's written and they see it, it's an assumption. As I said in a previous post, when the democrats held majorities in the house and senate through most of GW's presidency, they had no problems kicking the can a few months at a time. They raised the debt ceiling under GW like 9 times. That sounds long term to me! It's hypocritical, and to me, it's expected. Funny now they want a "longer term" solution, when the shorter term solutions were wonderful for them for years on end. they don't want it to come up around an election, because they know they will lose the spending argument.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 10:23 AM) The difference with the Reid plan is that nearly (or perhaps all) of the Democrats would vote for it to get it done. That means only 30-ish Republicans are needed instead of 215. it would be interesting to see who those 30 Republicans would be.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 10:04 AM) The Reid plan will pass in the house judging by what has gone on so far, there is no chance that happens.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 10:14 AM) Perhaps you missed the last month of negotiations with the Speaker of the House, Majority Whip and Senate Majority and Minority leaders. Just because he doesn't submit a plan to you in writing, it doesn't mean there hasn't been one. Congress has the sole authority to raise the debt limit, not the President. He's also endorsed at least three separate plans for passing a procedural vote. basically, he is not leading. got it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 08:09 AM) He pushed multiple compromise plans. The one I liked, a couple weeks ago now, was a $4T deficit cut over 10 years, but must includde re-tooling the tax structure, removing a lot of breaks/credits, and getting rid of some of the Bush tax cuts. Funny thing was, both parties balked at it. Did he actually come out with a plan? Maybe he did and I didn't notice. Anyways, I think some re-tooling of the tax structure, as you put it, would be a fine as long as the spending cuts are legit.

president Obumble has really done a terrible job in his leadership role during this whole debt ceiling debacle. has he even put together any type of plan?

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jul 28, 2011 -> 02:51 PM) So then why do we keep hearing about how our tax rates are killing job growth? Isn't this just another argument that no one really has an answer to so we keep throwing s*** against a wall and seeing what sticks in the end? it's an argument by special interests that want tax breaks. most of the time when you hear some politician bulls***ting about something, they are just doing the bidding of some special interest that bribed them. but i think the US government is totally corrupt and bribed, so take my tin foil hat opinion for what it is.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jul 28, 2011 -> 02:31 PM) So you're saying less taxes =/= more jobs, interesting because that's all I hear from conservatives. And I don't know why somebody always has to bring in the other party, as if it justifies the poor thoughts of the their own party. I was only talking about conservatives, and although I'm not giving liberals the pass on this (because I do believe they've done many a thing wrong too) that doesn't mean they should get mentioned as a defense. You explicitly mention 'conservatives' while leaving out the Democrat party in your queries as to 'why do they do this'. I was merely supplying the missing context for you. also, no, i do not think merely giving tax breaks to companies automatically creates jobs. I will direct you to the GE example again. Big tax breaks, lots of labor arbitrage. But on the other side of the coin, uncompetitive tax rates can hurt job creation. The trillion dollar question is what can be done to encourage US hiring.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jul 28, 2011 -> 02:02 PM) Bigger profits = more jobs though, isn't that why so many conservatives are complaining about high tax rates? actually, less US workers = bigger profits. automation and labor arbitrage. the assumption that big profits will result in US hiring is wrong. by the way, you would be surprised to know that Democrats are just as sold out to corporate interests as any Republican. Take a look at Obamas 'job czar'.