yyz28

Classic. Well played, sir.

It doesn't automatically put it in Romney's column, but I feel pretty good about Wisconsin after studying the exit polls last night. The Exit polls had the race as a virtual dead heat yet the election broke wide open for Walker. ...the exit polls also included a question about who voters will vote for in November - Obama only had a 1 point edge in that poll. ...figure the Exit polls were off for walker by 7 points, and then do some quick math. ...assuming the same skew on that question, you've got a 5-6 point Romney edge in the exit poll. ...Certainly not scientific, but it shows that the state is FRIMLY in play, and a wise betting man would be looking to more sure things when betting on the November election. Spending by the left didn't get rid of Walker, and I don't think is going to swing large portions of voters from Romney at this point. Wisconsin is more politically aware and I think offers fewer undecideds than virtually any other battleground state at this point. It is going to be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Yeah, good point...

The issue can't be framed as a single problem, it is a multitude of problems. Lack of parental involvement or, as the cartoon above somewhat accurately depicts, a lack of sense of responsibility or accountability by students and parents is a growing problem. Teachers unions which protect bad teachers and collective bargaining contracts that protect weak teachers while disallowing the rewarding of good ones. Up to 4 layers of fat between monies collected from taxpayers to actual spending directly on education (IRS, DOE, State Education Board, ISD) all of which has far more administrative and non teaching capacity than needed, and is often duplication of effort. Parents don't have the option to get their kids out of failing schools, and failing schools have little to no motivation to improve. Teaching has become focused on passing standardized tests, not gaining knowledge, practicing skills and learning. ...and that is just the tip of the iceburg.

Corporate Bigwigs? Because public sector unions can't hold the taxpayers hostage? Ok. The most interesting thing about this is how wrong the polls were going into today. Who turned out would be what got my attention if I were advising Obama. Great victory.

Friends, I don't have many details except the very basics. My wife is Friends with Scott's wife on Facebook - Scott underwent a double heart bypass on Monday and apparently is doing well. Mean Green Nation, please keep Scott, his wife, kids and family in your thoughts and prayers.

Well, you could be right. It will be hard to quantify until election day. I'm not sure if having Obamacare struck down, assuming that happens (and that's still a pretty big assumption - I've seen the courts do stuff that I never thought they would, including upholding McCain-Feingold(sp?)), is an automatic win for Romney's camp. ...they can still play the "despite our best efforts" game and may find some way that I can't predict to make a case based on it. From June to November is a lifetime in Politics. It'll be interesting. Scott's going to win, and I think rather big tonight though.

I agree that this vote today stripes the field. If a special interest group can manage to get a sitting Governor thrown out of office for enacting the reform policy he ran on in the first place, then we won't see anyone else willing to take on special interests in an effort to reform. ...if Walker and his Lt. wins, then I agree that other reform minded governors and politicians might take up some harder issues in their locals. I'd be wary though, even though I hope you're right, of reading too much into how the outcome of this race impacts Obama. First, the majority of the state voted for Walker the first time. The majority voting block doesn't like to have a Minority overturn their will. Winning this recall has been an uphill battle for the left since the minute they started, and it was done more as a power play than an actual attempt to defeat walker. Unfortunately, this play is appearing to have backfired. The question is will the Walker voters tie Obama to the attempt to thwart their will? ...he has been very careful and politically more prudent on this than he often is by staying WAAAAAY out of this fight. What this MAY do for Romney in Wisconsin is depress the left vote in November as a result of what will be viewed by many of the faithful as a major blow. That more than the tide of public opinion moving right will deliver Wisconsin to the Republican nominee should it occur. Great post, KRAM!!!

i don't get magazines or papers in physical form anymore. If I can't get it on my iPad, I pass.

Cool! thanks for sharing!

Well played, sir... +1

I don't see the IPO as a bust. It came out at a number that the market apparently feels is a rather fair valuation of the company. Virtually every tech IPO which skyrocketed day one is now bust. ...had it tanked the first day, that would be a bust. The fact that it didn't rocket to the moon doesn't make it a bust. Those of us who believe in the tried and true buy and hold market strategy are perfectly happy with Facebook's performance in the market.

Had this come from the JFK School of Public Affairs, it would have been a bit more appropriate. Well done, UT.

Nothing to comment on. Nurse killed the lady in cold blood. i don't care the color of any of their skin. There is no hidden agenda by the media in that case. She did it, we know why she did it, there is no question on motive or situation. Very different case. In the Martin/Zimmerman case, there is question as to what led up to the shooting, all of which is FAAAAAAAR more important than the skin color of EITHER of the men involved (which to clarify isn't important AT ALL). Race aside, I can understand the interest in the case just from a pure "what really happened?" point of view. It's specifically the racial component of the Martin/Zimmerman case that I reject and am down on the media, many politicians and the typical race-baiters for trying to make an issue when clearly it wasn't. If Zimmerman committed a crime, he should be punished. If not, he should go free. This is the same no matter the race of the alleged victim.

Good for this young man...

All this back and forth is silly. Bottom line is this - Media reports painted Martin as a kid who simply got shot because he was black. Now, it has become pretty clear that he got shot because he beat the sh!t out of someone with a gun. The challenge the Jury has at this point is convicting Zimmerman if nobody can make a legit case or show proof of why Martin beat the crap out of Zimmerman. If he was in a corner and attacked Zimmerman out of self defense, then and ONLY then do you have a case against Zimmerman. ...but everything that led up to that situation is, in my mind, irrelevant. ...I keep hearing that Zimmerman put himself in that situation to have no choice but to pull his weapon. Unless he literally had Martin backed into a corner, Martin could have escaped and not confronted Zimmerman. It appears he did for whatever reason. To put the responsibility for stopping these series of events before they spiraled out of control on Zimmerman is crazy. ...someone may say a prostitute puts herself in a bad position, but if she gets raped by a client, isn't it still rape? Do we defend the perp by attacking the woman? No, we go after the person who committed the crime, no matter the circumstances. In this case, Assault is a crime. Defending yourself with deadly force isn't. Based on the medical evidence, a fight that could be defined as Assault has occurred. The only question now is who started it. When I look at the evidence, listen to the witness statements that we have and listen to the 911 tapes, it looks like Zimmerman was backing off and Martin confronted or jumped him back near his car. ...but even this is circumstantial. In the end, I don't think prosecution has a smoking gun or anything that is tight enough to convict... ...and they knew that from the beginning. This is a political trial so they could say "we tried to get justice for Martin" to the race-baiters. What happened is a tragedy. One young man is dead. Another's life is ruined, no matter the outcome of this trial. ...the folks who should be on trial here is the media for spinning this into something it never was.

This thread is classic. It's like two not at all connected threads that collided at high speeds... LOL!

Wow... this thread spiraled into some nastiness... Sorry to see that.

Any playoff plan where some "committee" chooses the 4 schools is BS. It should be based on the rankings which should be based on a formula not unlike the BCS has been in the past (though that needs some tweaking, and quality of wins and loss of Conf. Championship Game has some negative impact, etc) Keep that part of the system basically in tact, and take the top 4 schools. The real bitch with the BCS has seemed to be that there is some argument over which one of two schools should get in. One is usually in without question, and then the second school there is controversy with. Put four in and make 'em play for it eliminates that crap. OSU & Stanford would have been in this year, and that controversy would have been non existent. Ideas get floated all the time. let's see what actually happens and then react to that.

Love the report. REALLY love the BOR agenda.

I don't support a stock fund. Any fund that would replace Social Security in the private sector would have to be diverse. Stocks may be included, but the percentage would be largely driven by your age and proximity to retirement. If there is a fund with actual cash in it the survivors get that benefit. ...and we shouldn't be paying military next of kin via Social Security. That can be done using other systems. Outliving your money is always a concern, but again, not something that couldn't be worked out in the private sector.

This type of thing is SOOOOOO hard to judge at this point. The odds are against a Rookie QB coming in and making an immediate difference or even being half as great at the Pro level as he was at the College level. ...and there are more stories of highly touted QB's that get traded after a year or two by the team who drafted them...

Conservatives would be looking for a way to make good on the promises made to folks near retiring and at the same time be working towards spinning this program down to it's ultimate demise, transferring these responsibilities back to the people with whom it belongs. Building a policy that pushes us back to a privatized retirement program is the only way to ever truly solve this problem. It is likely to be forced on us once the system collapses, which at the current rate, will happen sooner rather than later. ...but if a controlled shutdown is preferred (and it would be by any rational person) a number of strategies, including means testing, would have to be employed. ...So, we don't means test for folks in the system now or near retirement... ...but we do for people who are currently in their 40's and 50's and let them know now so they can plan ahead properly. ...and for the folks in their 20's and 30's, let them opt out entirely. Over time, the system will transition into private funds where there is actually wealth growing instead of some number in some imaginary account somewhere. If I were given the option TODAY to opt out and put my money in private funds, I'd do it with ZERO hesitation. ...if we're going to keep the system, and try to fix it for its long term survival, then I am 100% against means testing. FWIW, this class warfare crap is just that. Usually pushed by the uninformed or the ideologues. Anyone whom continues to argue that the upper 1% who make 16% of the income yet covers 32% of our tax burden isn't paying enough into the system for Social Security or any other program, simply has an axe to grind and isn't interested in what the plain and simple numbers reveal. They will argue for the buffett rule, but not question why "1%'ers" who are for it don't just open up their checkbooks and right the wrong they profess to be against? ...they won't mention to you that the President who is trying to score political points on this issue paid a lower rate than HIS secretary this year. They won't demand that the politician they are supporting and who is arguing this point open up his checkbook to right this social injustice. The federal government has acted in a way with Social Security that would put any other financial manager in prison for the rest of his life. They have stolen the money and spent it rather than invested it as they promised the American People, and as they continue to try and make them think is happening... ...what do you think that annual statement is all about? I don't think the government can be trusted to do the right thing. I don't think the government can fix the problem. I think it will go belly up before any politician has the balls to do something meaningful about it.

Not hypothetical at all. First of all, most people DON'T get that, and polls indicate that. The term TRUST FUND insinuates that there is money in a TRUST FUND as there actually IS money i(or a financial instrument of some time) in ANY other TRUST FUND, you, I or business cares to set up. So, the language is confusing. ...to further make the point that Social Security was "NEVER intended to be a retirement vehicle" is to simply ignore history, as is to argue that the original intent and part of the sales pitch for Social Security is that it would actually be a reserve of cash. Social Security was amended for the first time after passage in 1935 in 1939. One reason for the proposed changes in 1939 was a growing concern over the impact that the reserves created by the 1935 act were having on the economy. The Recession of 1937 was blamed on the government, tied to the abrupt decrease in government spending and the $2 billion that had been collected in Social Security taxes. Benefits became available in 1940 instead of 1942 and changes to the benefit formula increased the amount of benefits available to all recipients in the early years of Social Security. These two policies combined to shrink the size of the reserves. The original Act had conceived of the program as paying benefits out of a large reserve. This Act shifted the conception of Social Security into something of a hybrid system; while reserves would still accumulate, most early beneficiaries would receive benefits on the pay-as-you-go system. Just as importantly, the changes also delayed planned rises in contribution rates. Ironically if these had been left in place they would have come into effect during the wartime boom in wages and would have arguably helped to temper wartime inflation. The amendments established a trust fund for any surplus funds. The managing trustee of this fund is the Secretary of the Treasury. The money could be invested in both non-marketable and marketable securities. The Act was an attempt to limit what were seen as dangers in the modern American life, including old age, poverty, unemployment, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children. Protecting people from Poverty in old age by definition makes Social Security a retirement vehicle. In fact, it encouraged a good deal of elderly employed to retire when benefits became available. The government adopted a unified budget in the Johnson administration in 1968. This change resulted in a single measure of the fiscal status of the government, based on the sum of all government activity. The surplus in Social Security trust funds offsets the total debt, making it appear much smaller than it otherwise would. This allowed Congress to increase spending without having to risk the political consequences of raising taxes. This is when the Government began actively stealing the people's money. ...not to go off on a tangent again, but I find it helpful to understand the history of something if you're going to try to find solutions for it. ...but the solution is rather simple. 1. Allow people in their 20's & 30's to opt out and allow them to choose private investment instruments. (to be regulated, which normally, I hate, but if it would push people into fending for themselves instead of letting big brother take care of them, I'd be for it in this case) 2. Repeal unified budgeting. Force the Government to go back to building reserves on Social Security. 3. Cut Government Spending. Roll it back to any year you wish 2008 or previous. Economy was kicking ass in '97. How bout we go back to 1997 government spending? 4. Repeal the "FICA Tax Holiday" so that we're actually collecting the money going out to social security from those in the program. 5. Raise Full Retirement to 70. Problem solved, government put back into some form of check and personal liberty has been restored. Passes all 3 policy litmus tests for me.