LastPommerFan

I see it quicker than that. By the 2020 election, these two platforms would make Texas a swing state. North Carolina and Virginia are already there. South Carolina and Arizona are headed that way by next election, Texas and Georgia follow after that. This coalition is unsustainable, even in the next decade.

Start calling.

The moderate stances I mentioned are supported by a majority of Americans in nearly every poll. The hard line stances on Abortion (no exceptions ever) and Gay Rights (should not be included in non-discrimination clauses) are wildly unpopular in nearly every poll. These planks are specifically engineered to get the attention of a specific group of voters while fiscally conservative voters hold their nose and dive in with them. They are decreasing in their popularity every year. It is an unsustainable position for the party. I disagree with your assessment of the baby-boomers, in polling, they are more progressive than you'd think. Regardless, old people stand a much greater chance of being dead by the next election. Not where you want your power base.

I think, in 2008, fiscal conservatism wasn't really taken seriously coming from the GOP. It was the social issues that led them to victory in 2004, and kept it close in 2008. Lehman waits 3 more months to go belly up, President McCain is running for reelection right now. After the conventions, McCain had a sizable lead heading into mid-September. Then Lehman happened, Obama didn't even have to try at that point.

I see one remote possibility that this doesn't occur. If the Dems go long and somehow magically regain control of the house, the GOP will implode. Their coalition is based on using unpopular socially conservative planks to support slightly more popular fiscal conservatism (which is also where the money for the GOP comes from). If it is proven that this coalition can't win, the money will move left on social issues to try and reform the party as socially moderate (Abortion limited but legal, Gay Marriage solely at the discretion of the states, etc.) while maintaining the strong fiscal conservatism that drives the big money donations. Undoubtedly, a third "party" will fill the socially conservative void. The GOP may have to move further left on social issues than they would like in order to make up for what they lose in the Christian Right. For every 2 voters they lose out the back, they'll need to pull one away from the Dems. I don't think the Finance/Wealth that backs the GOP will allow unpopular social planks sink the 2014 senate races. 2014 has some significant Dem Vulnerability in the senate. The GOP has few chances to gain seats in 2016.

I would be. The president has a big lead. The only way it gets close again is if something huge happens before the election. That would be huge. No blessing, tacit nor explicit will be given before November 7th.

The "selling to terrorists" question really isn't parallel to the delivery mechanism question. They'll be delivered to major cities the same way cocaine is. The military nuclear threat is remote from either of these nations, or any national military for that matter. We made it through the cold war on MAD because MAD works. No Military will destroy themselves to spite an enemy. Terrorists fanatics, on the other hand, would. And I don't think it will be any easier to stop 100% of their attacks as it would be to stop 100% of the cocaine imports. I just don't believe an emerging power would sell their nuclear arms to terrorists. Nuclear material is scientifically traceable. It would be the same as if they launched it themselves.

I'm sure because this is how nuclear weapons work. Having 10 bombs is more valuable than 9. If this is a true worry, the cat is already out of the bag. Pakistan and North Korea have nukes. Both actively support terrorist groups. If it's going to happen, It's probably happened already. It's not the reason to stop Iran from obtaining a bomb. The reason to stop Iran from obtaining a bomb is that it makes them un-invade-able. If we want to maintain airstrikes or invasion as a legitimate threat against Iran, they can't have a bomb.

If Iran had a nuke, there is almost no chance in hell they are selling it. Same with North Korea, Pakistan, or any other "Hostile" regime that were to develop the bomb. If you are a nuclear armed military, your strength derives from your nukes. All of it. You don't go selling that to a "disperse network of loosely affiliated terrorist cells". You are going to keep it, so that you can keep the power. I am not in favor of nuclear proliferation, but I don't think it poses nearly the threat everyone makes it out to be. If a terrorist group is going to get it's hands on nuclear weapons, it will be either a former Soviet Weapon or some massive US Military eff up (they are occasionally prone to that), not from some new world power trying to establish regional or international legitimacy. Next Question, would Iran, if provoked, use their weapons to obliterate an Israeli city? They are aware of the results, so no. It's not even mutually assured destruction. It's one sided. They could damage, then they would be destroyed. So should Israel instigate a conventional war to avoid the potential for nuclear war? Thank God India managed to show some restraint when Pakistan developed their bomb. The death and destruction caused by a preemptive Israeli initiated conventional war would outstrip the damage of a nuclear attack, probably by 100x.

The problem right now is that there does not seem to be a significant political presence for Moderate Islam. There's King Abdullah and Turkey, that's about it. Iran's religion is led by the same people who lead the politics. They call for the destruction of a nation. That's militant, I don't know that I could be convinced otherwise. Saudi Arabia is only moderated by their exports, notBut, as you point out, it is important to note Isreal's aggression, especially in terms of settlements. Neither side mourns when the other is hurt. American Hegemony in the area is about the only thing that prevents full out war. And I'll agree that it is totally undesirable that we have to play that role, effectively by ourselves. It will be interesting to see how the new Spring Regimes impact this balance. I don't buy the WWIII argument though. The powers in that region have sufficient power to destroy each other, but pose absolutely no military threat to the west or asia. The rest of the world would join and take the side of the quickest route to stability (read: oil exports). There is no way China/Russia take up arms against Europe/US. they'll just end up dividing up the "reconstruction". (Read: influence over oil resources)

I wouldn't put it that way, there is going to be about the same number of players in the league no matter what. I look at it as, the top salaries drive up and more players are driven to the min. Look at the Wild now, they have some big names, but now they also have most of their roster below the league average salary (a little more than $3M) It doesn't cost them their job, it just takes money out of their pockets.

The total spent by all the owners combined on player salaries is completely independent of the negotiated contracts. If they hadn't set the FA contracts high, and the total value of the player contracts ended up being less than the CBA agreed player share, they would end up writing a big check to the players at the end of the year (this was the meeting that was held this past monday). If they overbid and ended up overpaying the players share, the players would lose their escrow balances and the owners would recoup their overpayment. That's the beauty of the revenue tied cap. The total spent on players is the same no matter how many GM/owners end up writing crazy contracts.

The boom in immigration during and after the war most likely more than made up for the War Dead. (best i can find the number was over a million for the decade)

http://youtu.be/eKbFb6TPVEA

Interesting perspective! Thank you! I'd like to add a few points that don't necessarily contradict this position, but may expand upon it. Your point about WWII and the Great Depression is spot on, the New Deal helped a ton of people have meaningful work and life saving incomes as the country struggled to recover from a combination of terrible environmental practices (Dust Bowl) and the inevitable result of unlimited unregulated financial speculation (Black Tuesday). This recovery was very slow, but FDR did manage to move unemployment from 25% to 15% prior to the outset of the war. What transitioned the country from that better, although unacceptable number, to the post war boom was most certainly WWII. But what is the economic benefit of war? Certainly death is not an economic benefit, neither is destruction. The real economic benefit of war is that war, especially one on the scale of 1941-45, justifies unlimited government spending. Weapons are the perfect stimulus for several reasons. First, they are going to be primarily domestically made, particularly during wartime. Second, they are consumed on a much shorter timeline than, say, infrastructure projects. Lastly, they require manufacturing, which more than any other industry (e.g. Healthcare, Finance, Retail) will drive economic multipliers throughout the community. So, economically speaking, war is simply, and unfortunately, the only time we can agree to do the things that strongly stimulate the economy. The post war boom was extended beyond the influence of WWII, and through the 1960s by another great stimulus, the Interstate Highway Act of 1956. Yet another example of spending by the collective power of the american people through their government. 1973 really marked the shift in american political economic theory from the Keynesian Economics (Government Stimulus) that had dominated the previous 40 years. Part of that was dropping direct conversion between the Dollar and Gold (The process of dropping the "Gold Standard" had actually begun a century earlier). For the last 40 years we have seen what monetarist economic policy does in the place of Keynesian economics. Middle class becomes stagnant with more and more people drifting into the lower class while the lifeblood of capitalist economy's, Capital, concentrates itself unceasingly into the upper classes. This is fine, for a time, there is nothing inherently wrong with wealth collecting wealth, but it is not sustainable because eventually there is not enough fuel in the engine (spending) to keep it running. I think we're at that point now. Sure, huge paradigm shifts around technology (Personal Computers (Early-Mid 90s), the Internet (Mid-late 90s), and to a lesser extent Mobile Phones in the 2000s can drive the economy themselves, but even their impact is affected by the economic model we choose to follow and lead the the same problems with wealth concentration after a time. I, and my fellow democrats, don't want to create a new marxist wealth redistribution process, we simply want to return to the model that drove nearly three decades of middle class growth, by harnessing the power of all Americans together, through the government(s) to drive economic growth targeted at the middle class and, importantly, help speed up "the next big thing". [this was more of a blog post than a message board comment, for that, i apologize.]

17th in 06-07! Clearly success is dictated by being top ten in PP. The Sabres were TERRIBLE that year in the Regular season and their 3 series playoff run. Same in 98-99! Get the Rope! Boom...Boom...Boom...Boom...

First, Bush and Reagan both spent like crazy. Terrible examples of non-government spending fueled growth. In addition employment was worse when Bush left office than when he started. (True for both Bushes). I'm all for tax cuts, but not for any income above $150k. That money won't get spent in a way that will grow the consumer driven economy we have. It will get saved and invested, and the LAST thing this economy needs is more tied up cash in corporate accounts. We need spending. Middle and lower class families spend. Spending is demand. Spending will fuel jobs. Cutting taxes for the wealthy will only worsen the debt with no positive impact on employment. I think he was responding to nFreeman.

Yeah, my statement was directed at America in general, not specifically you.

I cannot speak for the republican platform. I can tell you this. The president has proposed and the GOP House has blocked, specific policy actions to generate jobs. Economies are measured in GDP and Growth of GDP, never in employment. Employment is driven only by the need for employees. Health Care is a large part of US Employment. By bring more people into the roles of the Insured, more Nurses and Doctors will be needed. Look at health care hiring since the Affordable Care Act was signed. This is an industry Growing in Revenue AND Employment. President Obama's jobs proposal this year contains changes to the tax code that will offer incentives to companies bringing overseas jobs back to this country. With wages rising in China, this is becoming a more desirable action for many employers. The president's proposal would help speed this process up. You make an excellent point with "The next big thing". In the 90s we had a personal computing and internet fueled growth. We need that next big item driven by american ingenuity. This is why the Democratic party wants to invest NOW in education and research, to fuel future growth. Yes, it will cost money, all investments do. Yes, some investments, like Solyndra, will fail, no investment plan hits 100%. But we believe that if we pool our resources now and invest them for the future, we will all be better off.

Putting the US Economy "back on top" is not a value and not even really a reasonable goal. On top in terms of what? GDP? We are already there by a mile. Growth? You'll NEVER out grow an emerging economy. Jobs? Ok, but Economy =/= Jobs as shown by this recovery. That post is significantly more confrontational than I intended. apologies.

How about we just ignore the "gaffes" altogether and get to the core values separating each party's vision and policies.

The thing with this election is that it shouldn't come down to which guy is smarter or has better character. The Values driving the Policy decisions by each party are so starkly different this go-around that you should easily be able to make a determination without giving either guy an IQ test. One party values individual success above all. Their ideal economy is the Freest Markets Possible. They believe that Christian Values are an excellent starting point for morality throughout the Nation. The other party values collective success above all. Their ideal economy involves a government proactively working to close the income/wealth gaps and supporting the bottom with a strong safety net. They believe individuals are best suited to determine morality for themselves. It don't get much more different than that.

According to the available numbers, yes, and at 97.69% of the cap. So they are profitable at the high end of spending. http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/09/18/the-nhl-economy-financial-disparity-from-the-bottom-up/

Exactly, this is the kind of crap that will help fill a 24 hour news cycle, but has no impact on anything. If you already support the guy, you dismiss it, if you hate the guy you say, "See! He's an idiot!" but the only people who hear you are other people who hate the guy. If you're undecided, you weren't paying attention to begin with, so you probably never hear it anyway.

I agree that increasing the spread would hurt the have nots, but right now, we are a have, and it would increase our chances in the short term. I'm ok with that. all I want is one. A second team in a second arena in downtown Toronto would be a money machine. It might take $10M from the Leafs and next to nothing from the Sabres. It would probably generate 60% of the revenue the leafs generate, making it the 3rd most profitable team in the league. A team in Quebec would probably break even at 90% of the cap, as opposed to say Phoenix which couldn't break even at 50% of the cap. Same thing could be done with the Panthers and Jackets to Seattle and Hartford. The big one though is the second Toronto team. If NYC can support 2 profitable teams (Devils and Rangers), Toronto could probably support 4 or 5 profitable teams.