text:
Nonverbal Communication Analysis # 2236:
John Boehner & the Fiscal Cliff Plan B Failure -
Body Language of Duping Delight
Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
Nonverbal Communication Analysis # 2236:
John Boehner & the Fiscal Cliff Plan B Failure -
Body Language of Duping Delight
The Republicans signing the no raising taxes pledge are taking a grade schoolers atitude toward leadership. According to Lafer, at a 0% or 100% (ultimately killing the economy) tax rate , you receive 0 tax revenue; and that to maximize tax revenue, the proper tax rate is between the 0% and 100% extremes. According to the pledge the Republicans signed, would they want, if they could pick any tax rate, a 0% tax rate. It is simply common sense responsibility not to promise a candy balanced diet; or for the NRA not to back down even when assault rifles are the question.
You know, the hell of it is that the very very rich who should be able to pay more in taxes have offshore holdings in tax havens to eliminate any US taxes owing on that income (e.g. Mitt Romney). Until someone deals with taxation of worldwide income and penalties for not coming clean on where an American citizen's income is earned, the holy grail of effectively taxing the rich will elude Democratic lawmakers.
It is not only a question of very rich American people it is the question of very rich people or big companies. They know how not to pay more taxes and if something is ever said they just threathen the governments.
They're going over the cliff.
It's the only way GOP politicians can go back to their districts and say they voted to cut taxes. Simple as that.
The real fight will be on the debt ceiling. That's where the GOP will look for maximum cuts. And that's where they'll force another recession on the USA, when their brinkmanship tanks the economy.
Nonverbal Communication Analysis # 2235:
Barack Obama and John Boehner -
The Fiscal Cliff and Contrasting Body Language
A few thoughts:
1. The voters had 4 years to assess Mr Obama and they re-elected him. They are getting what they want. They have (as a majority) either bought into the 'there is such a thing as a free lunch' dream or they don't care enough to think about it.
2. The hard lessons of the EU social experiment have not been learned in the USA. In the US, 'red states' and cities are following Greece to bankruptcy. Ditto for the federal government.
3. The democrats blame the rich for the failures of their economic ideology. If they get every tax and spending increase they want, at best, they will solve 3% of the deficit problem - they have been silent on how they would solve the other 97% and the press doesn't seem to care to ask. At worst, the economy will decline further as the rich leave (as they are in France and Greece after their tax increases) and private sector capital is directed to a much less efficient government sector.
4. The republicans don't seem to have any principles they are willing to fight for. I'm not really sure what the party stands for any more. At one time they stood up for the conservative principles and the tax payers but today they seem to worry more about how they are perceived. They continuously allow the democrats to define them and they don't know how or have the stomach for fighting back. You know you are in trouble when the previous president can't / won't defend his policies, the Speaker of the House sobs in his acceptance speech, and last presidential candidate accepts being called a 'liar' and 'rich pig' but refuses to bring up the deaths of 4 American in Benghazi. Republicans: Is this all you got?
5. Given all this, I am convinced the best way forward is to let the democrats have everything they want. Just vote 'present' (ala Senator Obama) and let them own the economy. Of course it will fail and people will suffer greatly. But that's going to happen anyway. At least this way it will be clear, even to the most ignorant, that (once again) big government / socialism does not work. The more you tax the less work / taxes you will get. The more you give away, the more freeloading you will get. It always ends badly.
6. Unfortunately, some people (apparently now the majority) actually have to stick their hands in a fire to realize it is actually hot. After a few decades of being told to feel sorry for themselves and they are owed something for nothing (which means someone else is responsible for giving it to them) – too many people now actually believe it.
As a liberal, I think the other 97% is not so difficult.
First stimulate the economy more with deficit spending on infrastructure.
Then when the economy is back, raise taxes on everyone.
Raise the capital gains tax.
Cut the military in half, slowly since this will affect employment.
Raise the salary level for social security contribution.
And look a the social programs that really work for our problems of poverty, education, prisons (too many people in prison for non-violent crimes).
PS - the reason Obama can't say this is because as soon as he says raise taxes, the Republicans shout pants on fire.
The real problem comes from an uneducated public that is susceptible to all the non-sense from Republicans and Fox News so that we can't have an adult conversation.
Wow!!!! If things were that simple!
Yes, tax more and spend even more. And definitely "..look at the social programs that really work…". An excellent plan - I'm certain it will succeed.
At some point we need to get serious. We are borrowing 30 cents on every dollar we spend at the Fed level. Fed spending has doubled since 2000. Our debt has grown by 40% in the past 4 years. We have 22M unemployed and 47M on food stamps. The more we tax, the less money people have to spend or invest – which means fewer jobs.
We have a spending problem. Worse, we are becoming a society that is dependent on government. Tax payers are getting weary. They are feeling like suckers – they study hard, invest in themselves and their work, they get up early and slog thru traffic, fight the battles at work, and get home late and tired. Then liberals tell them 'you didn't build that' and demand they give their hard earned money to people who don't try and contribute zero. Further, they are demonized for being successful. We are killing the golden goose. When that happens, the poor will get really poor…
You say we have a spending problem but we didn't when Bush took office. What happened? Bush cut taxes and increased the military (similar to Reagan and was also Romney's plan) and now we have a spending problem.
And if we have a spending problem, how about cut the military in half?
As far as social programs, I agree liberal programs don't work, but at least we try. What is your plan to end poverty? We are the richest country on the planet, we should be ashamed of ourselves. And I lived through segregation. What we got from George Wallace was "segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." And 30 years of trickle down have only made it worse.
As for taxes, I had my own manufacturing company for 15 years. If I made $300,000 and had to pay an extra 5% on the last $50,000 that would be $2,500. That would never be a factor if I hired or not. What would be a factor would be if the economy was doing well and I had more customers.
Also, health care costs are killing us, part of our spending problem both in the public sector and the private sector. Go look at health care in Germany - everybody covered, great health care, half the cost. What's our problem? And when Obama tried to implement a Republican idea, all we got from Republicans was talk of "Death Panels."
Finally, while you may think the market is the cure to everything but the market doesn't have morality. Nobody wants their children to smoke including people who work for cigarette companies but it is their job to get people to smoke. And you and I pay for it in health care costs.
In the end, if you can cure poverty and give us health care as good as Germany, I'll vote for you.
The plan we get from Republicans is cut taxes and increase the military.
You don't like my plan, what is yours?
Simplify the tax code and gradually eliminate deductions, reduce tax rates, and significantly decrease spending (especially entitlements). I agree, we need to decrease military spending as well - we can't afford to protect the free world alone anymore.
How about ending poverty and controlling health care costs?
5) The more you tax the less work / taxes you will get. Explain Yourself.
"The hard lessons of the EU social experiment have not been learned in the USA. In the US, 'red states' and cities are following Greece to bankruptcy. Ditto for the federal government."
When much maligned George W. Bush proposed privitizing Social Security, a bankrupting entitlement, he got nowhere.
When he compromised and suggested SS should be privatized partially on the VOLUNTARY basis - Democratic leadership in the House refuse to even debate the plan, let alone to vote on it.
Now it's clear, that under do-nothing Obama not only Social Sercurity defict but also that of Medicare is going to grow (them already being unsustainable) there's still no action from the White House.
You may not want to use Germany as a health care model. My next door neighbor is German. Her father has an identical twin brother. They are 72 and both suffered heart attacks within months of each other. Both have the same defective heart valve that caused Ruth's heart attack. The one who lives in the US was treated at Fairfax hospital in Virginia. The one in Germany was sent home after being stabilized. The German medical system will not operate on him because he is not worth the investment, he has already lived a "full" life. Six months later, the Brother in Fredericksburg VA is up and about, working as a part time carpenter. The brother in Germany is bed ridden and declining fast.
If you are proposing the German model health system for Democrats and the US pre-ObaMamaCare health system for Republicans and those who work for a living, I support you position 100%. Can I sit on the board that determines which Democrats have already lived "a full life." Harry Reid comes to mind, but then he is a Democratic Senator, so he is exempt from ObaMamaCare.
Mr. Guthrie, Thank you for your postings and restoring my faith that not all Americans have lost their minds. When did we stop teaching basic economics in our classrooms? Probably around the same time parents stopped teaching their children the principles of self-reliance and good citizenship. I guess the"ask not what your country can do for you..." has been completely stripped from the Democratic platform.
Mr. Guthrie, Thank you for your postings and restoring my faith that not all Americans have lost their minds. When did we stop teaching basic economics in our classrooms? Probably around the same time parents stopped teaching their children the principles of self-reliance and good citizenship. I guess the"ask not what your country can do for you..." has been completely stripped from the Democratic platform.
This is the first time I've ever heard any thing bad of the people I talked with and what I've read about German health care. I'll keep it in mind.
Though probably I can give you many more horror stories about US health care where people didn't have insurance and were diagnosed too late for cancers that could have been cured.
And we still pay twice that of Germany.
In addition, we spend a lot of money on the last 3 months of life in this country. Slowly, we are trying to change this with living wills and most people seem to choose to pull the plug rather than do heroic last efforts that will only prolong the agony a week or month.
So maybe, given the contrasts, I would still opt for Germany.
As for putting you on the board, absolutely. While it is fun to trade barbs from the comfort and security and isolation of the Internet, it becomes a lot more serious when you are in the room.
Conservatives are good at thumping their chests and giving us the hard line. But they never go into the poor neighborhoods and try to fix the problems.
On the other hand, programs in the past by bleeding heart liberals like me haven't worked very well, either.
We are now getting a new generation of liberals like Obama who are trying to use analysis to see which programs really work.
Finally I would say, people like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News make a lot of money pitting people like you and me against each other.
I think of conservatives as driven by accountability and responsibility. I think of liberals as driven by wanting to help others less fortunate. These are not mutually exclusive but rather they are complementary.
I'll come up with the good intentions of ending poverty and fixing health care and you come up with the plan.
So far, I have never gotten a realistic plan from a conservative. All I get is trickle down tax cuts, more military and prisons, and the free market.
This last, the free market is good at making profit. It often does not have morality. (I had my own manufacturing company for 15 years so I definitely am not against capitalism.)
Please, seriously, what is your plan for ending poverty in this wealthiest of all countries in the planet? (We should be ashamed.) And what is your plan for our way too expensive health care costs? Health care cost are not only killing our federal and state deficits, but also hurting the private sector which conservatives always want to help.
mistaken entry
Poverty: Why are you fixated on poverty? Poverty has always been with us and always will be. If you think it's bad here, try going someplace else – I suggest Somalia. Quit trying to make the world 'fair' – it's not (I should be able to throw a fast ball 95 mph and make millions in baseball – but I can't and I deal with it). One thing we know for sure: throwing government money at poverty does nothing but waste money and institutionalize poverty http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/why-the-war-on-poverty-failed/#axz...). If you have a charity you wish to support, do it (and if you could keep more of your tax money, you could give more). I'll do the same and we can eliminate the government middleman who will skim 40% from the top and impose their will on how the money gets spent. I don't want my money going to a 25 year old beach bum who surfs all day and parties all night – and I've seen them with food stamps. If that's where you want to give YOUR money – go for it.
Health care costs: Despite Mr Obama's promise, my health insurance costs went up 25% over the past 2 years. It is going up another 15% in Jan. It seems the more the government does for me, the more I pay. Once ObamaCare kicks in, we will see a real disaster. HHS is completely unprepared for the tsunami that is coming their way; they don't know how to run an 'exchange', their processes are not ready, and their IT systems have not been implemented. Businesses still can't project their rising HR costs and have to spent time and money preparing mitigation plans. I expect ObamaCare will be delayed and heath care / insurance costs will have to go up even more to pay for their bumbling. Rising costs and uncertainty: this is why businesses move offshore. Expect unemployment to go up..
Health care costs can be significantly reduced by:
1. Repeal ObamaCare and reduce government taxes and regulations on the medical industry (e.g. the medical device tax) – all these costs get passed to the consumer. Paperwork is killing doctors ability to provide care and increases their cost of doing business (my dentist gives me a 30% discount if I pay cash).
2. Open the insurance industry to national competition. The past practice of each state having their own insurance policies and regulations eliminates any 'economies of scale' saving potential.
3. Pass tort reform. Legal fees and litigation in the health care industry are huge and pervasive – and they all get passed down to the patient / taxpayer. These costs are built into every drug and medical device we use, every doctor and nurse we see, and every insurance policy we have.
You are missing the point on poverty. I want to end poverty, that is get people off of food stamps and educated and working and paying taxes. You say we have always had poverty but go to Holland and tell me. As for living in a poorer country, I lived in Brazil.
Ending poverty is a great idea, for moral reasons if you are a liberal and for economic reasons if you are a conservative. So once again, I will ask what is your plan for ending poverty.
As for health care we have had similar experiences. I have an individual plan. It went up 50% in two years before Obama care. I switched to another and it went up 50% in two years after Obama care. There is no justification for that. But it is the market solution. They are there to make money not make us well.
As for tort reform, go look at states where tort reform has been implemented and health care costs have not gone down. How much do you think this really adds to health care costs. My guess is 5% to 10% max. Clearly, we have doctors preforming tests as a precaution. But just as equally, we have hospitals performing tests to make money. Have you been in a hospital lately?
Why does medicare have lower overhead than private insurance.
Go look at Romney Care in Ma and you will see they are just beginning to mak progress on cost control.
And there is a new trend in hospitals in some markets to buy up doctor practices in order to force allegiance to their hospital and then have a monopoly and raise prices.
As I said, the market is good at making a profit, it is not moral or really care about our health or costs or what is good for the country.
But you are fooling yourself if you think we have twice as good health care as France or Germany or Canada although we pay twice as much.
Mr. Duffy,
In order to address the nation's ills, we need to make meaningful reforms and throw away the bluster from both sides.
The key to escaping poverty, which all my brothers and sister successfully did, is through education. We need to hold teachers accountable for their performance and institute performance based compensation which has led to increased performance in the private sector. Unfortunately, we will not have meaningful reform while sitting Presidents such as Clinton and Obama send their children to the best private school In DC. Last time I checked, Sidwell Friends was a private school than runs more than $30,000 per year. President Obama comes across as cynical when he uses the Bully Pulpit to support striking public school teachers he would not allow to teach his own daughters. We invest heavily in education in this country, more than Japan or South Korea, yet we are ranked 52nd in the world. Simply pathetic.
I agree with cutting the Department of Defense. It is bloated and needs to be reduced. I believe the 500 Billion in cuts instituted by Secretary Panetta are a move in the right direction. Unfortunately, he has targeted the very veterans that have been fighting the war for the past decade. The Marine Corps is being cut from 202,000 Marines to 182,100 Marines without a corresponding reduction in their missions abroad. Twenty thousand Marines are getting pink slips from a supposedly greatful nation this Christmas. The Army is laying off 80,000 soldiers. Maybe the Marine Corps will open the Toys for Tots program to the Marines and their families who are being shown the door. Yet the civilian workforce within the Department of Defense continues to grow unchecked. The civilian workforce which is largely concentrated in DC has Congressmen and Senators to represent them from Maryland and Virginia. Military service members votes don't count, since they are scattered among the 50 States and not registered near their bases. Final point. Prior to the $500 billion in cuts, DoD only comprised 19% of the Federal budget, down from 55% in the 1950s. Do the math, if you completely eliminate the DoD, you will still have a budget deficit and a 16 Trillion dollar debt. We have to cut federal spending across all agencies.
Health care costs should be indexed to the Body Mass Index. Individuals who refrain from smoking, consuming alcohol, and excessive eating, while exercising regularly, should receive a discount on their health insurance premiums. Individuals who choose to smoke, consume illicit drugs and engage in gluttony should pay higher rates on an exponential scale. Individuals will continue to choose self-destructive behavior, which is their choice, as long as I am not compelled to subsidize their lifestyle. If you chart rising health care costs to the rise in obesity, you will see a correlation of roughly 30%. While we are on the topic of obesity, overweight people not only infringe on your personal space aboard airplanes and busses, they increase the operating costs. The US Air Force conducted a study a few years ago that demonstrated that every 10lbs of equipment aboard a transport plane added $100,000 in operating costs per year, due to the increased fuel required. Try to calculate how much your numerous obese passengers are costing the airline next time you are sitting in your seat watching them squeeze down the isle. By the way, the airlines pass those costs on to the other passengers, so you are subsidizing their lifestyles already. Now imagine how much excess fuel they are burning in their personal vehicles, which are not only hauling their excessive weight on a daily basis, but also tend to be oversized vehicles. Now that is Super Sizing it.
Entitlements need to be reformed. They are growing at an unsustainable rate. Prof. Peter Maurecie from the Univ of Maryland cited on WTOP, that the entitlements of $650 Billion today will exceed 4 Trillion in ten years. Everyone's taxes would have to increase 40% to sustain that. With 47% of Americans not paying taxes today and 10,000 citizens reaching 65 each day, we have to raise the retirement age or reduce benefits.
Get rid of pet projects like Poetry readings for cowboys etc. The Arts should stand on their own. If the so called Elites want to attend the Opera or see a play, they should have to pay the cost to support the production. If artists feel so strongly about supporting the Arts, then place an entertainment tax on pop culture profits and cinema.
Unwed mothers. We should provide assistance out of compassion without rewarding bad behavior. Assistance should be provided for the first child. If the unwed mother decides to have a second child, then she should lose a portion of the benefits she receives for the first child. With 45% of children being born to unwed mothers, we will never reduce poverty in this country. Shut down the poverty generators, unwed wombs.
We agree more than disagree (which is not surprising if we both have the same facts).
I think poverty and health care costs are the biggest problems to be fixed which is why I return to these.
And I agree that education seems to be the way out. Like your family, I was the first to get a college degree. And while I agree on the problem of teachers unions, have you ever been to a ghetto school? Go there and then tell me how you are going to fix that. Please, really take a tour and give me your solution.
While it is easy to take shots at Obama and Clinton and Sidwell, how many Republican politicians are also sending there kids to private schools. With all of Romney's talk, where did he and his children go to school? What I get from too many conservatives is vouchers so they can home school and teach creationism.
Regarding unwed mothers, how many conservatives want to shut down Planned Parenthood and teach abstinence?
Your party has really become extreme and people like you need to tell them so because coming from me, they aren't going to listen. Instead we get Marco Rubio hedging his bets on when the world was created.
As I have said before, if conservatives would really fix the problems, you wouldn't get liberals trying to fix these problems with our bleeding heart government programs.
But 30 years of trickle down economics has made our country, as you said, 52nd in the world and pathetic.
From the south we got slavery justified with the Bible when the founding fathers said, "We believe these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and he pursuit of happiness."
100 years later they started a war to kill their fellow Americans in the name of states rights to defend the indefensible.
These same type of people told us woman was created from Adam's rib and could never be equal to man and should not have the right to vote.
In the 1960's, these same type of people defended segregation.
It is self-interest instead of the good of the country.
How many people complain about welfare while taking a mortgage deduction and child deduction which is just another form of government subsidized housing and child care?
PS - and today's version of self-interest is the myth about the job creators and an extra 5% taxes.
Regarding health, it is the free market that helps to sell as much junk food and cigarettes as they can. They believe in profits not the good of the country. Your response is that people must be responsible for themselves. But why should capitalism and morals be mutually exclusive and the people who work at these companies also be responsible for what they are doing and desist for the greater good?
Regarding schools, while we spend a lot per pupil, we don't spend equally across neighborhoods.
Interesting that you automatically assumed I am a Republican for merely opposing a few of the policies of the current administration. Actually, I am an Independent who voted a mixed ticket during the last election, supporting the best candidate based upon their performance and stance. Blind allegiance to party has grid locked this nation. Try researching voting records next time before you vote. You might actually be surprised what you might learn.
At the same time many millions in the US die from want of any coverage at all, millions more who file bankruptcy over medical costs even if they have coverage, or file medical malpractice suits in order to avoid bankruptcy.
The US is replete with insurers making the same decisions. Your neighbor got lucky.
Yes, I did assume that you were Republican. I am a liberal but I, too, am registered as an independent.
You do promote several of the Republican myths - like the job creators and we don't have a revenue problem but a spending problem and that raising taxes will stop people from working.
The spending vs. revenue is completely arbitrary. We can decide how much government we want and taxes we want. It is a democracy and the majority should win in theory. I will gladly pay for PBS (though I agree there are many examples of the arts that are nonsense). I don't want the military but I am out voted. What we really need is good and efficient government.
As for taxes killing jobs, you know we had a better economy before the Bush tax cuts than after. And, of course, we can go back to post WWII industrial peak when marginal tax rate was 70%.
In fact, since Reagan, the Democrats have been better fiscal stewards than Republicans. Reagan and Bush quadrupled the debt and Bush-son doubled the debt. We got a balanced budget with Clinton. And what nobody talks about is that Obama's first year budget of FY2009, which was signed by Bush in October 2008, was $3.1 Trillion spending with $1.4 Trillion deficit. Obama's last deficit was $1.09 Trillion, a 30% reduction and a miracle given the economic circumstances and the attitude of the Tea Party and Mitch McConnell. If it had been a Republican, Fox News would make sure we all knew about it.
I can only guess that this decrease comes with unemployment going from 10% to 8% and the resulting decrease in unemployment expenses and an increase in tax revenues. Keep this in mind and let's review your thoughts about the military affect. My guess, and it is purely a guess, is that at more normal economy of 5% unemployment we would have $200B - $400B less expenses and $200B - $400B more revenue. Just for a discussion let's assume $500B less deficit. Instead of $1.09 Trillion, it will be $600 Billion. Given that the military is $700 billion, cutting that in half has a significant effect on the deficit.
I am realistic to know this will never happen given the democracy we have now. I believe Panetta's cuts are not absolute cuts but cuts in the rate of growth. You can correct me if I am wrong.
Personally, I would love to take half the military and turn it into a training organization and anybody who wouldn't graduate high school and go on to continued education would be "drafted" by this organization, with boot camp for discipline, military pay, and trades training. This, too, will never happen.
You did say you didn't want to pay for people to go surfing as if liberals want to pay for this. I work and pay taxes, why would I want to pay for that any more than you?
I believe you also mentioned something about Obama's "you didn't build that" comment. Did you see the whole clip or only the edited Republican version? Obama was talking about the US economy and infrastructure. How many "self-made" conservatives would be equally rich if they had been born in Somalia?
My impression is that when conservatives work hard and are successful, they say "I did that." When liberals work hard and are successful, they look at the less fortunate and say "there but for the grace of God go I."
I believe that to those who are given much, much is expected, and not in terms of self-interest but helping others. It is actually kind of Christian. I sometimes listen to the Christian right and think they go to church on Sunday and say buyer beware Monday through Friday. Liberals don't go to church and think capitalism and the free market ought to be moderated by morality.
Finally, I will leave you with this link to a Kristof column describing what many liberals are thinking today in terms of social programs.
PS - I just looked back and realized it was not you but someone else who made the comment about food stamps and surf bums.
Also, is the $500 Billion defense cut over 10 years - $50 Billion per year? Not very much and still from the rate of growth not absolute?
Unfortunately you are 100% correct. Voters believe that their is a free lunch and someone else should pick up the tab!
OBAMA is playing politics and is a great speech maker but is unable to deliver substance. Words are great but they do not put food on the table!
OBAMA has divided and concurred a second term but the American people will pay with high unemployment and low economic growth. As a politician OBAMA is great, as a leader he is a failure! The American people would rather have an intellectual that can deliver eloquent words and speeches rather than action and results!
Unfortunately you are 100% correct. Voters believe that their is a free lunch and someone else should pick up the tab!
OBAMA is playing politics and is a great speech maker but is unable to deliver substance. Words are great but they do not put food on the table!
OBAMA has divided and concurred a second term but the American people will pay with high unemployment and low economic growth. As a politician OBAMA is great, as a leader he is a failure! The American people would rather have an intellectual that can deliver eloquent words and speeches rather than action and results!
Unfortunately you are 100% correct. Voters believe that their is a free lunch and someone else should pick up the tab!
OBAMA is playing politics and is a great speech maker but is unable to deliver substance. Words are great but they do not put food on the table!
OBAMA has divided and concurred a second term but the American people will pay with high unemployment and low economic growth. As a politician OBAMA is great, as a leader he is a failure! The American people would rather have an intellectual that can deliver eloquent words and speeches rather than action and results!
I agree, voters want to cut someone else's free lunch but not their own.
How about cutting the military and see what they say?
How about ending the mortgage interest and child care deductions that are just government subsidized housing and see what all the home owners say?
The more I read these posts, the more convinced I am there are some rough times coming. I now believe we are incapable of managing our fiscal problems. There doesn't seem to be a consensus on: what the problems are, how to solve them, or if we even have a problem at all. Lots of overly simplistic and non-productive discussions about how we got there (don't forget past democrat presidents had republican congresses and vice versa).
Here are some facts:
1. USG debt is rapidly accelerating: $6T in 2000, $7.6T in 2004, $10.7T in 2008, $16.3T this year.
2. USG revenues have remained fairly steady: $2T in 2000, $1.9T in 2004, $2.5T in 2008, $2.5T this year).
3. USG spending has increased significantly: $1.8T in 2000, $2.3T in 2004, $3T in 2008, $3.5T this year.
4. USG has unfunded liabilities (social security, medicare, prescription drugs) of over $122T. The operative word is 'unfunded' (which means we don't know how we will pay for it).
My analysis (beliefs) based on these facts:
1. We have a spending problem. It started during the Bush years (in 8 years our debt increased $4T). Mr Obama's has made it much worse (our debt was increased by $6T in only 4 years). Our revenues are not down; all the debt increase is coming from coming from increased spending.
2. Our unfunded liability is biggest Ponzi scheme in history. It's not talked about much but it's a huge ticking time bomb. There is simply not enough money in the world to pay for the promises that have been made.
3. Our debt trajectory is non-sustainable. So far we have been enjoying a big party without worrying about how we will pay for it. We have not managed our fiscal problems so they will manage us. It's like a guy who makes $50k/yr and spends $80K/yr. New house, car, big screen TV. But when the credit card gets tapped out, his spending will drop from $80k to $50k (actually $40k because he has to pay back the debt). That's a big change in lifestyle. Similarly, the US will have a big change in lifestyle. Things we take for granted now will be cut (or more likely destroyed by inflation). The safety nets will be gone and people who have become dependent on the state will have to fend for themselves – something they are unprepared to do given too many of them have lost their work ethic or don't have the training to get a job. Worse, the opportunities for our children (who did not get to enjoy the party) will be diminished – they will be very upset with our generation.
We can spend a lot of time pointing fingers on how we got here (yes, both political parties are at fault). I'd prefer to focus on fixing the problem. Time marches on and every day we dig a bigger hole for ourselves (our debt is increasing by $3.8B/day!!). It's the spending stupid – and it better get managed soon. Instead of waiting for a 'grand bargain' let's start by cutting the low hanging fruit right now (I think we'll survive as a nation by cutting GSA trips to Vegas). Unfortunately we don't have the leadership to even do that. The tax and spend crowd appear to be the majority now. Until they actually see and feel the effect of their bankrupt ideas, they will deny the obvious and postpone the inevitable. I don't see a happy ending here. The lunatics have taken over the asylum.
What is all this new spending?
What would the numbers be at 5% unemployment?
What is the budget as a % of GDP for those years?
PS - What would the numbers be if our health care costs per person were the same as Germany?
"We the people" are the government, so the government spending money that helps the majority is reasonable and just. The notion that the government is separate from the people, or even the enemy, is malicious right-wing claptrap.
The real enemy are the "I've got mine Jack and am entitled to as much of yours as the law allows" members of the TEA Party and their supporters in the solipsistic rich/rent-seeking class. They are all for cutting welfare, but not welfare for corporations and [in tax breaks] for the rich.
That's one way of looking at it. Here's another: "I've accomplished nothing in my life but I want people who have to support me". I see it as modern day slavery. Taxpayers are forced to work extra hours for people who do nothing. Where will you be when people who pay taxes stop working? Democracy works when most citizens have 'skin in the game'. We are getting to a tipping point where too many people are voting with other peoples money. That can't last long...
I work for a living and make at least 2.5 times the minimum wage. I do not like cheats and parasites any more than you do. That is why I am angry at a system that taxes my meager savings while not taxing or under taxing those making much more than I do.
That is not fair, nor is cutting aid to people who need it while shoveling big bucks to those who don't [i.e. welfare for corporations like oil, agribusiness, insurance, big pharma, defense contractors, and others]. There should be means testing on all outgoing funds and supports, including welfare, social security, medicare and supports for industries [at least solvent and profit making ones].
One more point, those people ["Corporations are people too"-thanks Mitt] need to pay taxes at the same rate that I and every other American does, and on all income from whatever source. Since I had to worry about the IRS when working overseas, they should have to worry about their legally or illegally maintained foreign accounts including Mitt's].
I disagree that it is only a spending problem. The revenue numbers I have seen from the OMB show $2.5 Trillion before the recession and $2.1 Trillion since.
Add to that the extra expenses of unemployment and food stamps and my guess is another $400 Billion of expenses that will go away with 5% unemployment.
After that, it is time to fix the deficit. But if you like what you see in Europe, then austerity is for you. But I would not choose that path.
Of course with any enterprise of that size, there will always be examples of government waste.
Doesn't hurt to do a little homework next time instead of blindly repeating the Republican myths.
Happy New Year.
We agree that health care costs are probably going to be the real problem long run.
At least Obama tried. Republicans have never tried.
The free competition that you want is determined by the states and their individual regulatory agencies.
But I am much less hopeful for a free market solution. The free market is there to make a profit, not make us well. And I would argue that is the bigger problem.
The free market has no morals and does not put the good of the whole above individual profits.
If it did, we wouldn't have cigarettes and junk food which is also a big factor in our health care costs. You and I pay for people who smoke and are obese.
Boehner explained the failure of the negotiations to both sides reaching bottom lines they couldn't budget from. Seeing how close they were, I find that hard to believe. I think if it was just them two, they could've easily closed the gap.
But despite what some may think, a bipartisan bill with the Tea Party voting against might've been worse for the health of the GOP and the country in the long-run. The Tea Party votes in primaries. Would you really want Boehner replaced with a TPer?
The good news is that from the bottom of the cliff, there's nowhere to go but up. Any bill would be a tax cut and the Tea Party can vote for it. And in fact, it gives Boehner a lot more room to negotiate. The bad news is that the TP wing won't be punished for burning the house down.
Interesting points RR.
Do you think the TP would still have the power it did in such a scenario? I am skeptical of that, but you certainy make a valid point.
In either case, you make a good point that given the convoluted logic both sides use, this could give Republicans the cover they need to put a positive spin on it.
Similar to when Democrats increase spending by $100M, then reduce it to $75M and call it a cut. (It's Christmas RR, I thought I'd throw one your way :-)
What makes you think that Boehner won't be replaced by a Tea Partier (or at least Cantor, which isn't much different)? I seriously don't see how Boehner gets elected Speaker in the next Congress. The radicals don't like his apparent willingness to compromise, and the moderates don't like his folding to the radicals repeatedly. So he's likely history. What is really sad is that he is likely to be viewed, in retrospect, as the best Republican Speaker of the 21 st century -- which says a lot more about where the GOP is headed than ti does about him.
You may be right. Though Cantor supported Boehner so he wouldn't be as bad as a true TPer.
Boehner will have most of the GOP behind him but there's no way some of the TP Republicans support him and that may be enough to doom his speakership. He has one final chance after Christmas to save it.
The good news is that from the bottom of the cliff, there's nowhere to go but up.
That's like saying, "Because we had to download Facebook and other stuff here to our computers, they won't add anything else that will slow down this site."
Or, "Once we get "tax reform", the size of the paperwork explaining taxes code and the paperwork for filing income taxes will be forever small."
Ye of wishful thinking.
We still will have the Debt Limit battles, as the TP's will never give that up.
The bad news is that the TP wing won't be punished for burning the house down.
The RNCC could always target the TP's.
Remember, many Republican seats are safe and they could cut back on funding normal Republicans up for re-election in 2014 primaries and focus on funding normal Republican candidates in TP districts in hopes of killing their cancer.
So going down the cliff, now taxes back to Clinton era, and where are the cuts? Can someone say Democrats win? Honestly I don't see what's the problem with the candies from Bush years phased out, yes some increase in taxes, yes no child tax credit, but that was the time when we actually had a SURPLUS, that was WHY we had a surplus.
But instead of using any surplus to pay down the debt we had - much like using overtime earnings to pay off one's credit card bill - Bush43 and Congress decided to "spend it" by giving out tax cuts to get votes.
2 unpaid wars, an unpaid Medicare Prescription Plan, and a debt bomb explosion later...
"The top items on that agenda are climate-change legislation, immigration reform, and (suddenly) gun control, (along with keeping up some measure of progressive stimulus until the economy is fully recovering.")
The part of the sentence between the parentheses does not really fit with the usual smoothness of TE, could you change it?
Hayeksplosives hopelessly influenced by Johnson
With all the problems the Rich have, perhaps its wiser to remain poor!
The GOP is a snake eating its tail. Once Cantor takes over he'll take train wreck even further. These Tea Party should morons should all be impeached.
You know, this group of republicans (Teabaggers, Know-Nothings, Phony christians) really wants to kill the government, except for the military and the give-aways to the big biziness people and the rich. Government by the corporations; isn't that a definition of fascism?
Here's an interesting perspective: the American voting public has no advocate in this fight. No one asked for their opinion, and many of them don't feel very well informed about the details of what lies below the precipice. In fact, only 7% felt like their opinion was considered on the proposed cuts and less than one-third know what the fiscal cliff is or what the "Super Committee" is or who is on it. See the research results for yourself. http://www.isky.com/download/facing-fiscal.pdf
The voting public have plenty of advocates. Barack Obama was re-elected and so were many of his tax and spend collegues - and they told the voters very clearly what they would do for them. It's the tax payers and our children / grandchildren who have no advocate.
please, think before speaking
I like how the "voting public" and "the tax payers" are not the same people to you.
Expecting logic from the party of illogic and its members/supporters is itself illogical. As a famous robot once said, "Does not compute, does not compute....."
So Obama proposed a plan to raise taxes on those over $400K, that also included some spending reductions.
And Boehner rejected it because there weren't enough cuts. Fair enough. But then Boehner proposed his "Plan B" that raises taxes, but doesn't include any spending cuts? Wow. Not exactly the way to win over moderates (or logicians) to his side. It is an illogical position driven by his repeated belief that he can find a compromise that Republcans can agree on and make the Democrats look like the obstinate ones.
Unfortunately, it is the split in his party that is causing him to come up with this rather illogical approach. We all know he needs to make some concessions, but he simply cannot do that and get a majority of Republicans to agree, given there is a large percentage of his party that still refuses to compromise on taxes.
It seems rather obvious that if Boehner truly wants a bill that can pass, he is going to have to find one that will also attract moderate Democrats. But in doing so, he is of course going to alienate many in his party and perhaps lose his leadership position and possibly his re-election.
That puts him in a difficult spot. Either way he is probably going to lose the Speaker's position.
Plan B had no additional net cuts; but it included spending cuts for a lot of liberal causes (healthcare, food stamps, etc.) and revoked the planned defense cuts, as well as rolling bank banking regulations just for kicks. What's crazy is that even that proposal couldn't get full GOP support.
OK so the Mayan prophecy is being delayed by the Cliff hanging Mad Hatter's Tea Party until New Year's Day!
16 consecutive years of the 2 worst presidents in US history. I thought Bush was as bad as it could get but was wrong. Obama is a vindictive and divisive bully that is less interested in being a leader than in "winning" at all cost.
It is hard to have confidence in the future of the US after this bad run of leadership from the White House.
Well said.
Your comment is like throwing a pie at your roommate, and hitting the guy across the block, down the street, standing in his backyard, tending his garden, deadheading his roses. Boenher and his gang of misguided Republican misfits have been the problem, are the problem, and will continue to be the problem until some number of American voters finally wake-up and put these sorry excuses for Congressional Representatives out to pasture.
Your statement is half right, 2000-2008 - worst ever Republican President, 2008-2012, worst ever Republican Congress.
There is no justification for that statement whatsoever. The collapse of Boehner's "Plan B" ploy is clear evidence that the right-wingers who have hijacked the Republican party refuse to compromise in the face of economic facts, common sense and a clear voter directive. Please enlighten us with any facts you have for "bad run of leadership from the White House" given the chaotic behavior of this do-nothing GOP House.
Did you even read my post? As a centrist, I am unencumbered by blind loyalty to either party. This allows me to look at both sides and give an unbiased opinion on actions.
My comment was on bad leadership. We also have bad leadership in both houses of congress on both sides of the aisle. I fail to see how one-party rule of the US is a smart path for the nation regardless of which party.
I spent 7 years lobbying in DC and have experienced how easy it is to buy Republicans and Democrats. You are naive and uninformed.
Just because you're centrist, does not in any way mean you're unbiased, or even less biased than someone who has been voting consistently for one party. You have a set of values and interests, as we all do, and those bias you whether or not you're aware of it.
Wapner speaks the plain truth. I'm pretty sure most of the commenters on this forum are not Americans and base their opinions on (dis)information promulgated by the leftist "mainstream" media outlets. Obama is even worse than the idiot Bush was, America suffers.
Jake S, take a look in a mirror.....
I spent 7 years lobbying in DC and have experienced how easy it is to buy Republicans and Democrats.
Perhaps you were part of the problem, and not part of the soulution.
I don't see you calling for limiting lobbyists.
(They outnumber the people in Congress by a huge margin.)
We're actually all gay Iranians who get our information from radio free Pyongyang while eating vegan loaf with our lesbian life partners.
Limitations on lobbying was not the topic but since you bring it up, I am in favor of a Constitutional amendment that eliminates all campaign funding and payments to political funds. All of Europe manages to conduct politics without this corrupting influence.
To harsh on P44. He has to clean up for P43, who was a real incompetent. P44 is just not strong enough to overcome the obstacles. Weak perhaps, but not incompetent. Perhaps we need to import our leadership from abroad.
How 'bout a compromise: For those above 400 K: 35% tax rate; and those above 1 M: 39.5% tax rate.
Good idea, excellent. Genuinely, and without a trace of irony, that's exactly the sort of deal that needs to be done.
The problem is that if you're a "deficits don't matter" republican who has sworn never to increase taxes for any reason, compromise isn't an option.
A good compromise. Which is probably why it won't happen.
It's already 35% for those above $400K. But something like 37% and 39% is a decent compromise. Or raise taxes on $250K+ but zero out the bottom rate(s). Obama keeps his campaign promise to raise taxes on high-income earners and Republicans can claim a tax cut for low-income earners even though it raises tax revenue. Taxes are flatter yet more progressive.
Perhaps he meant to include capital gains in the income that is taxed at those rates.
For a UK conservative like me it's all very sad. At least our previous government here had the excuse, for spending our country into the poor house while handing out tax cuts and tax credits like candy, that they were socialists so what do you expect? Fortunately we had the option of kicking them out and electing a competent conservative government to dig us out of the mess.
What choice do the US electorate have? It's a dire strait to be in when your fiscal conservatives are intent on committing national economic suicide and you have to rely on a left wing party to get you out of the mess.
Although fully agreeing with your comments about the UK, there is little general Right-Left correlation concerning fiscally conservantism, I am afraid.
Clinton was a president, for instance, much better in that aspect than Bush senior and Bush junior.
In Italy the Left was more fiscally conservative than the Right. OK, the Right was firsty the Christian Democrats and then Berlusconi.
The same happened in Brazil, where the Social Democratic Party cleared the terrible mess created by the military dictatorship in the public finances. The Worker's Party loosened this control - much more public employees, with higher wages - but at least did not make the catastrophic proposals of its own program.
In Germany it also does not matter, both Right and Left are responsible.
And in Greece the Pasok and the Right were both equally irresponsible.
That's a fair point, the distinction I was making tends to be much more clearly drawn in the UK. Perhaps my exasperation with the republicans is partly down to my preconceptions of them as fiscally conservative when, as you point out, in practice they have been nothing of the sort.
In the US we're used to hearing about how Obama would be a conservative in Europe but I was listening to your George Osborne who was in NY and I was surprised by how thoroughly Republican he sounds. Not a Tea Party Republican but a typical Boehner-type establishment Republican. Unfortunately, our conservative party has that Tea Party wing to deal with. Hell, without them we might've elected Romney to clean up the mess.
The Tea Party made sense for the Republican donor base.
Before, both parties would state their positions, talk, trade, and compromise somewhere in the middle.
Now the Tea Party was different, it wouldn't move and would defend low taxes for rich people. So as long as the rest of the people were sane, the obstinacy of the Tea Party would make it an effective negotiator vs. everyone else who was more amenable to compromise.
But it only works if the moderates are more powerful than the crazies. Because the crazies are actually crazy and can't negotiate. Krugman actually wrote a column which said "Thank god for the Tea Party, because they kept the Republicans from being able to take Obama's far too generous concessions."
And Obama offered even better terms during the debt ceiling fight in 2011 which the Tea Party killed.
I had a friend once who we'd play board games with. He was the kind of guy who would flip the board and storm off if he was losing. We knew this and we'd go easier on him in the interest of keeping the game going, but eventually we just stopped asking him to play entirely.
It'll be interesting to see if the Republican donor class still wants to play with the Tea Party after this.
Those donating to the Tea Party are Tea Partiers. The typical Wall St. donors prefer establishment Republicans. But it's the voters that ultimately decide whether they want to stick with the TP. At the congressional district level, you actually have some TP districts and 17 Republicans is all it takes to block Boehner's speakership on January 3. I'm not sure this can be resolved without a Republican president to change the trajectory of the party the way Clinton did with the Democrats. Maybe a strong speaker can and I hope it's tried but it's far from certain that a speaker has that much influence.
The idea behind the Tea Party is that the donors give them money in exchange for getting the Tea Party rank and file to support them.
Here's the list of Club for Growth donors
or the one for Freedomworks
In general, Democrats get a larger share of their money from small individual donors while Republicans have donors providing big checks and in exchange these organizations get the Republican voters to back the donor's interest.
The election of Obama scared Republican donors something fierce, and to quote Batman, "You squeezed them, you hammered them to the point of desperation. And in their desperation, they turned to a man they didn't fully understand... Some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."
The Tea Party accomplished it's short term goal of avoiding compromise with Obama, but it can't be turned off.
"these organizations get the Republican voters to back the donor's interest"
The Illuminati does that using mind-control satellites? I fear your grip on reality is beginning to slip, Neo-Con.
They get them to back the donors interest by pushing the agenda, going on Tv shows, and writing op eds. Nothing spectacular about it.
A good example of this is the estate tax. Here's an interview with Frank Luntz, a Republican political consultant who does this for a living.
"Look, for years, political people and lawyers -- who, by the way, are the worst communicators -- used the phrase "estate tax." And for years they couldn't eliminate it. The public wouldn't support it because the word "estate" sounds wealthy. Someone like me comes around and realizes that it's not an estate tax, it's a death tax, because you're taxed at death. And suddenly something that isn't viable achieves the support of 75 percent of the American people. It's the same tax, but nobody really knows what an estate is. But they certainly know what it means to be taxed when you die. I argue that is a clarification; that's not an obfuscation."
Normal Republican voters who don't make over 5 million dollars had no opinion about the estate tax.
But Republican donors certainly did. So Republican donors donate to Republican campaign or organization. That organization hires Frank Luntz. Frank Luntz successfully rebrands the estate tax into the death tax and suddenly Republican voters making 45,000 dollars a year are howling about it.
What about this scenario, that actually happened, sounds foil hat to you?
You see a similar thing now with tax policy. If taxes are a purely budgetary technical bit of government, it's hard get people to hold firm on tax cuts for millionaires. In that situation there would be a give and take, and "take" would probably hit rich people more. But if you can change the debate so that not raising taxes is a moral issue, than you can get poor Republicans to defend tax cuts for the rich.
Normal Democrats had no option about Bain Capital. But unions did. So they give to Priorities USA which puts out ads saying that Bain, and Romney specifically, killed people. Their donor list puts Club for Growth to shame.
The case for this kind of effect on the Tea Party is much weaker. The TP voter is already politically engaged. They're the ones trying to recruit more outside support.
I'll throw you a liberal bone though. Douthat had a piece arguing that the two most successful groups right now are the center-left (Bloomberg) and the far-right (Tea Party, NRA). The far-left (OWS, Code Pink) and center-right (Boehner) are in disarray. For sure they're still numerous but they're voiceless. The problem for the right is that the center-left is more appealing to the public than the far-right so as long as the right can't answer the center-left with their own center-right solutions, they'll be a minority.
Sorry, I should clarify that this is how all lobbying across the spectrum works. It's hard to get people to care about drilling in the Arctic National wildlife refuge if you frame it in purely technical terms. Instead, the Sierra Club will work to make opposition to drilling in general a platform.
My point about the donor list is that the Democrat groups donors and the actual voters overlap more.
But the Douthat piece is what I've been saying for a long time.
Democrats don't elect their crazies, Republicans do.
The opposition to Romney was based on the idea that moderate Republicans can't be trusted because they spent the Bush decade being trojan horses for radicalism.
People weren't scared of a Romney administration, they were scared of a Republican one.
Romney is an ok guy, but his friends are terrifying.
I do't understand why the case for this effect on the Tea Party is weak.
The Tea Party started out as a backlash against the TARP and government bailouts of Wall Street with tax payer money.
Yet 3 years later, all of that anti wall street, get rid of too big to fail, rhetoric has disappeared in favor of a death stand on taxes. That happened because the people bankrolling the Tea Party candidates told them to stop looking at Wall Street and start focusing on taxes.
Democrats certainly elect crazies. E.g., Debbie Wasserman Schultz. But for the moment the establishment has them under control. In the GOP, the tail is wagging the dog.
58% of Republicans don't believe in evolution. That is the dog, not the tail.
And 51% of Democrats believe Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks before they happened.
You're right that I didn't provide a link to my poll.
I'd be interested to see the one for 51% of democrats.
The one I think you're citing is a 2006 poll detailed here.
"How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?"
22.6% believing it "very likely" while 28.2% believing it "somewhat likely"
The question was not, "Do you believe Bush knew about 9-11 in advance?"
It's also a "somewhat" + s "likely." If I said it's somewhat likely to rain tomorrow, you wouldn't call that an unshakeable conviction.
But for that to be analogous to the Republican party of today, there would have to have been bunch of Democratic officials to start writing legislation about indicting Bush. But there wasn't, Democrats recognized that the response to this poll was essentially people saying "I wouldn't put it past him" towards the Republican president rather than a core belief.
If it was a core belief, you'd think that the trifecta of a democratic senate, house and presidency would have done something about it in 2009. But they didn't.
A better poll would ask "Do you believe the government was complicit in 9/11?" and "Do you believe that Bush used the 9/11 tragedy to get the US involved in a war in the Middle East?"
Most Democrats would say no to the first and yes to the second.
Now evolution is not a "protest" belief against the president in the same way.
I really appreciate your comments New Conservative, you have a knack for writing. I'll look for your name in future discussions.
I really appreciate your comments New Conservative, you have a knack for writing. I'll look for your name in future discussions.
If the US goes over the fiscal cliff politics won't change. Only the facts will change. Republicans can push for income tax rate decreases with support from Democrats. Those reductions will only benefit the middle and lower classes.
Both Republicans and Democrats will want to soften the effects of overly severe spending reductions and a deal will be made. Tax rates down and spending up with both sides a winner.
To underestimate Obama would be a colossal mistake.
The Mayans were right, after all.
Arrogant, extreme republicans. If their hypocrisy continues they will be obsolete, and be replaced by practical, moderate, common sense Center right. Center right is what we need not these crazy extreme nuts.
Thoughts and opinions on America's kinetic brand of politics. The blog is named after Alexis de Tocqueville's study of American politics and society
The Economist explains: Who would pay a "mansion tax"
The Economist explains
Football and British politics: David Cameron's own goal
Game theory
Britain's election campaign: April 26th: The deafening silence of David...
The week ahead: A very normal affair
Football and politics: David Cameron's own goal
America's Ukrainian mission: Training wheels
Have you listened to The Economist Radio on Facebook?
The Economist Radio is an on-demand social listening platform that allows you to listen, share and recommend The Economist audio content
Test your EQ
Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines
Want more from The Economist?
Visit The Economist e-store and you'll find a range of carefully selected products for business and pleasure, Economist books and diaries, and much more


text:
The Warriors were 11-22 on the road last season, which was actually pretty good for them compared to recent debacles away from Oracle.
For instance: They were 10-31 on the road two seasons ago. And they were 8-33 on the road in 2009-'10 and 2008-'09.
And now, after last night's victory in Charlotte, the Warriors are 8-4 on the road… and 14-7 overall, which happens to be the fifth-best record in the West and seventh-best in the whole league.
This does mean something. Even though we all know it's early and many tougher tests lie ahead… the Warriors playing like this in a sustained period does mean something significant.
But stop, let's go back to that road record, because that is the heavy-duty indicator here:
* After starting 4-0 on this pivotal 7-game roadie, the Warriors currently have the SECOND MOST road victories in the league, behind only San Antonio, which is a ridiculous 11-1 away from home.
Yes, you could say that the Warriors have taken full advantage of three of the easiest road games they'll play this season–at Detroit, at Washington and at Charlotte, three dreadful teams, particularly on offense.
If the games are there for the taking if you can just don't get in the way of constant bricking by Brandon Knight, Martell Webster or Ramon Sessions… well, that's not exactly a test of champions.
(The toughest part is at the end: Miami on Wednesday and then Orlando-Atlanta back-to-back. But if the GSWs just steal one of those, this would be their best overall long trip in my memory.)
But road wins are too valuable to just dismiss like that, particularly for the Warriors, who have lost so many games to so many terrible teams over the last many years.
Road wins are NBA gold pieces–it really doesn't matter how you acquire them, once they're yours, they're invaluable. If you can get to 16 to 21 road wins in a season… and the Warriors are easily on that pace now.. you set yourself up for a winning record, if you can blast through a big majority your home games, which I expect the Warriors to do.
This is how teams get to the .500 plateau–by picking off a large percentage of the easy road games and then winning a fair share of everything else.
And the Warriors are doing this because, yes, they are better than they've been since 2008. They also can get a lot better because of two names: Harrison Barnes and Andrew Bogut.
Who knows, it might still all fall apart, but the team is giving indications that they can at least get into the West playoff race. They might still fall short playing decently, but it's time to say it:
For once, the Warriors' roster makes sense because the front office has added depth, some size, the players are blending, sharing the ball, really trying to play solid defense (though, again, I have some suspicions that the stats are a little skewed by playing some terrible offensive teams).
When your roster makes sense, you can wade through long road trips, get different bonus production from different players, and motor on through into January and February with a fighting chance–or more–at the playoffs.
I'm not going to over-do the analysis. I'll save that for later. But I'll toss out five fast elements of the Warriors' obvious improvement:
1–No Monta Ellis. I don't want to rip the guy who did so much acrobatic scoring for the Warriors over the years, but the reason they were unbalanced was because Ellis made them unbalanced.
All the Warriors have from the three-team Ellis trade right now is the pick that netted them Festus Ezeli–while they wait for Andrew Bogut to get healthy or figure out how to play while not quite healthy–and they're better just because they don't have Ellis dominating the ball, limiting Stephen Curry and keeping Klay Thompson from getting minutes.
Mark Jackson was a big fan of Ellis, but he's a better coach without having to keep funneling the ball to Ellis.
2–Curry is playing beautifully, confidently, and combining with Thompson to give the Warriors a fearsome offensive back court that occasionally plays very good D.
Yes, this is connected to No. 1.
Admittedly, I wasn't 100% on board with the $44M extension Curry got before the season (mostly due to long-term and short-term concerns about his ankle, but he's been healthy all season).
A true measure of his value: Charlotte wanted him badly, and you watch that game last night: If Charlotte had Curry, the Bobcats would be immensely better. They would've absolutely offered him the max if he was on the market as a restricted F/A next summer.
That's why the Warriors felt they had to extend Curry for almost full price, even with the ankle issue, and if he plays like this even, $11M per is a great price.
Curry isn't always great, but he gives the Warriors flow and offensive explosiveness–and point guards who can't do that are getting regularly destroyed by him.
3–Over the last few weeks, David Lee (leads the Warriors with a +60 season plus-minus) is playing very well and very efficiently–easily the best ball of his Warriors' career.
I've been a Lee critic–I don't give his defense a free pass and it shouldn't get a free pass.
But when he shoots at this kind of clip (FG% is up from 49% to 51.4% over a handful of games) and feeds shooters and rebounds like a madman… Lee is a definite "plus" player and deserves praise.
Praise for good; non-praise when not good. Sorry if the multitudes of DLee fans don't like that process, but it's the one I follow.
Also, the front-office sensibility has helped Curry and Lee more than anybody, and it figures, because they are the two centerpieces of the team–Lee now has Carl Landry as a tag-teamer, which means Lee doesn't have to do as much heavy lifting and though I don't love when they're in the game together, it's a very effective offensive front court.
And that small line-up has faked it defensively fairly well so far.
4–Jarrett Jack is a player. And Draymond Green… if you like subtle, thoughtful, tough basketball, you've got to appreciate this guy.
Charlotte and Washington desperately need a guy like Green–or 5 guys like Green–but I'm not sure they'd know what to do with him; he doesn't dunk or throw silly allez oop passes or pose like a body builder after a dunk when the team is down by 20.
Green isn't a shooter–but the Warriors have plenty of those guys. He just guards people, cuts off angles, rebounds in traffic, passes to the right spot, cuts to the right spot, and helps the Warriors win.
Ezeli went 30th, and that's a good Warriors pick.
Jeffrey Taylor went 31st to Charlotte, Tomas Satoransky went 32nd to Washington, Bernard James 33rd to Dallas (in a trade), and Jae Crowder 34th to Dallas (also in a trade).
Then the Warriors took Green 35th. He might be the 12th or 13th best player out of this draft, so yeah, that's a steal. (Geez, that's a long item all itself. Which I will do.)
5–Mark Jackson and his staff are doing a very nice job.
You can tell they're focusing on offensive and defensive chemistry and stopping the opponent from doing the easiest things (offensive rebounding, races to the lay-up line) and that the players are listening.
Also, a very non-Warriors like thing: They haven't felt sorry for themselves and have adjusted to the loss of Brandon Rush and Bogut for most of the season so far. Instead, they've integrated who they've got, identified Green as a key piece and kept moving forward.
Really, you can appreciate Jackson every time the Warriors face a team that is essentially un-coached–Washington would be the most recent example.
The Warriors don't always play brilliantly, but there's a structure there, the players clearly want to do the right things, and there is definitely more attention to the defensive end.
On offense, Jackson and his staff are consistently working a nice Curry-Lee pick-and-roll action… and that twins with the Jack-Landry chemistry.
On defense, opponents are having a very tricky time scoring vs. the Warriors and the GSWs often own the glass, which is new for all of us.
They've got LeBron coming up, and then the whole rest of the season and maybe things have been a little easy so far. Maybe opponents have assumed the Warriors were a bad team, and they're not bad.
That's a step, right there. The next few are tougher… but could be very entertaining to see.
Let's see how all you Kawakami haters react to this one.
Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, hobbes
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2 ... kes-sense/
From "we believe", to "we belong", to "we gon beatcho ass!"
I dunno. Pretty good I'd say. I don't read him as much as some of you on here do though.
From "we believe", to "we belong", to "we gon beatcho ass!"
Oh yeah. Just wanted to say that I'm really proud of this team. To the core-- I am very proud of them.
From "we believe", to "we belong", to "we gon beatcho ass!"
Yeah, great start to the season for the Warriors. I know it's early in the season but I'm sure if someone offered Mark Jackson a 14-7 start before the season started that he would've gladly accepted that.
Yeah, still think he's a prick.
1, he marginally acknowledged the tantrum he threw about Curry's contract extension. "Didn't love it" is a tremendously light way of putting it. KNBR had him on afterwards and he did his typical sarcastic-cynic routine where he joked about how we'd tank again after Curry's ankle blew up and ran down a list of alternative points he thought we could have signed for less money; NONE of whom could hold a candle to Curry. Lucky for him, he can pretend on his blog like he didn't have any egg to wipe off his face and attempt to save some credibility. I don't mind if you were skeptical about Curry's health when he inked his deal, but Tim K flat out made the extension sound like a huge mistake. 2, what a Skip Bayless, cranky douche bag thing to do: needling at Lee's defense and provoking his fans amidst a reluctant, backhanded acknowledgement of Lee's all-star level of play this year. Kawakami doesn't merely "not give Lee a pass for defense"; the fool mealy-mouths constantly about the type of contract he has, claims Lee can't play back-to-the-basket (proven false), and made enormous blanket statements labeling Lee as nothing more than a leading scorer on a bad team (He said the same about Jamal Crawford, too... How'd that work out for Atlanta and LA?). The fact is, Kawakami seems to have had an axe to grind against Lee since he got here and apparently every compliment painfully extracted from the resisting Tim K will be accompanied, three-fold, with things that Lee does wrong. By the way, did anyone hear Tim acknowledge Lee's increased defensive output this year? About how he's rotating and calling out cutters and fouling hard and boxing out? Didn't think so. Overall, it's the same old Tim K. He can't really spin a 4-0 road trip into something chaotic or bad, but he sounded awfully defeated in terms of being obligated to acknowledge the Warriors' promising start. It's as if he's rooting for the worst so he can prattle on with his usual "I told you so" chicken little verbatim. I'm sorry, I just hate this fool with a bloody passion. GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD |
Hang on let me recatch my Raider breath to blast Kawakami on the Dubflip. I got banned on twitter because he linked to a Steve Young offseason blog article on ESPN & i wrote to Kawakami "Steve Young could fall asleep at his keyboard and bump the keys ehstuffnbsk & I'd still rate him as a better blogger then you" It was clearly a joke, But he laid out the ban hammer & I havn't been able to read him since. :P |
Lol...good one Pawno! That's a well earned ban.
This particular article is quite correct, though not a consistent, regular thing from this writer.
The team is doing great and I'm so happy. Can't wait for a FULLY HEALTHY Bogut to return and the team to improve even more. migya make the ring fall on ya |
He's right about Monta Ellis though. Just taking Monta off this team makes this a better team that actually plays like a team. Its not one guy shooting 25 times thinking he's a superstar player. On any given night, different players can shine. One night it could be David Lee and the next, Stephen Curry and that makes them harder to defend. Thats something that couldn't happen with Ellis.
+1! I was thinking the same thing... just not in so many words. All TK is doing here is mildly going along with the flow until he can find a flaw in the warriors that he can rip on them about. He always looks for the negative an it seems like he has this superiority complex, like if he was running the squad they would be doing much better. so, in short... "Hard Work Beats Talent, When Talent Doesn't Work Hard"
: 2010 - 2011 |
I didn't read the article, but wanna say I don't mind his articles. Some of his takes are good, some just suck. I will say he was there to call out Cohan a lot, so props for that -- in accurately highlighting just how retarded the last owner and FO was. I think most everyone knew this though right.
He has something against David Lee tho for sure. Ever since the trade, he shortchanged D Lee in everything. Why? 'Cause of the contract. That is the problem with some fans / writers. They look at ONLY the contract and nothing else that the player brings to the team. Instead, they should be looking at building the right mix of talent (sure some contracts may have less value than others). But end of the day, it's not how much they make but how all the pieces fit together. 2012 GSW Team = - This is what a Monta-less team looks like! How long was I saying to trade him - One word I got for them: BALLERS. They're just true ballers. Tough, gritty, competitors who know the game. I look at guys like Klay Thompson, David Lee, J. Jack, Landry, D. Green as just straight competitive ballers who WANT TO WIN (with the skills to back it up) more than other teams from warrior past. |
All Star
Posts: 3149
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:03 am Location: san jose Poster Credit: 20 |
I can't stand Kawakami, he festers in rumors, pushes a negative spin as soon as he can, and he is just a rude sob.
As far as his assessment of Monta, lets be realistic, majority already knew that a Curry/Monta backcourt was not working, its no suprise. Monta is not this, he is not that, but at the end of the day guess what ? Monta got us Bogut. Everyone can agree Monta needed to be traded, but there was alot of impatient thinking about getting the right trade. There was alot of closed thinking about our roster, which was depleted, compare and contrast this years players with recent past. For me I understood the consequences, regardless of how poor the team played there was a reason for it, and I will never hold a grudge on Monta. |
After the win in Miami, Kawakami had this to say about the Warriors:
From "we believe", to "we belong", to "we gon beatcho ass!"
I am impressed by how well the Warriors implemented the zone defense vs the Heat, honestly.
I still disagree that the Curry/Monta back court was not working, or could not work. There are a lot of people who might disagree, but if you go back, when did they actually get to see if it would work? For the last 2 seasons Ellis was here, Curry was hurt, so they never really got to see how well the two could play together. When Ellis was here we didn't have the supporting roster we have now. Yes, Ellis took a lot of shots, but that is exactly what Klay is doing now too. Both guys are scorers, just in different ways. The thing Ellis could do that Klay cannot is handle the ball. Ellis could create for himself or team mates, and while he wasn't the best passer, he was not a poor passer like some suggest. If you look at the squads he played on compared to ours, you cannot simply say that because he is gone, that is why our team is better. Don't forget that we were winning some good games before the trade. With that said, I think getting rid of Monta was good for 3 reasons: 1) We got a legit Center (who we still haven't seen on the court) 2) His off the court antics were toxic. I like the vibe in the locker room better now. 3) Curry is now the face of the franchise, and he is elevating not only his game, but those around him. He wouldn't do this while Ellis was there because he felt like Ellis was the leader. I don't think Ellis get's enough credit for how good he is, and to say that he couldn't be a Starting SG on a playoff team is unreasonable, since he was never given a chance to play on a quality team. All the reasons I like the trade were for non-basketball reasons, but the kid had game. oh, and TK still sucks. "Hard Work Beats Talent, When Talent Doesn't Work Hard"
: 2010 - 2011 |
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Toddler Time | |
Event Type: Childrens Library Programs Date: 12/20/2013 Start Time: 10:30 AM End Time: 11:00 AM Description: One and two-year-old children, with a favorite adult, participate in nursery rhymes, music and movement, and listen to a few short books. Toddler Time builds on familiar experiences to introduce new vocabulary and word sounds in a lively atmosphere.
Library: Fountain Library - 230 S. Main StreetLocation: Fountain Meeting Room |


text:
The American Diabetes Association (ADA) has recognized Norman Regional Health System's Diabetes Center for its commitment to excellence in providing quality diabetes education to the public.
The association's Education Recognition Certificate assures the Diabetes Center's educational programs meet national standards and staff is properly credentialed, said Pam Boeck, RN, CDE, program coordinator for the Diabetes Center.
"We aim towards all our staff being certified in diabetes education. We strive to give the best to our patients and I think being awarded this certification from the ADA shows our commitment," Boeck said.
The Diabetes Center nurses and dieticians work as a team with the patient and the patient's physicians. Dr. Tan Pham is a board-certified endocrinologist who often refers patients to the center.
"The Diabetes Center offers comprehensive instruction on how to achieve nationally recognized goals which a short visit to the doctor's office may not be able to achieve," Pham said. "The ADA recognition of the Norman Regional Diabetes Center is a merit to the center's excellence and experience in management of diabetes care. I've had much success in utilizing their services with my patients."
The Diabetes Centers' patients have shown remarkable improvement and in 2008 data showed 80 percent of individuals completing comprehensive education had a reduction in A1C value. An A1C is a test that gives a picture of a patient's average blood glucose control for the past two to three months. The average decrease in A1C was 1.1 points.
Vital to patients, most insurers will cover the cost of education. Medicare pays for 10 hours of diabetes education the first year of diagnosis and for two hours of education the second year.
"Diabetes is a chronic disease which needs to be managed chronically," Pham said. "The most important method of controlling diabetes to prevent the long term complications is lifestyle management. Medications are only used as an adjunct to a healthy diet and an active life."
The Diabetes Center is located at 3400 W. Tecumseh Road. Please call (405) 307-5731 for more information.
Contact Kelly Wells
Norman Regional Health System
Office (405) 307.2143
Fax (405) 307.2144
Email email@example.com


text:
Nick Minaj has been refered to as a "Sell Out" after her release of "Starship." This past week she hit up Hot 97 to drop her single "Roman Reloaded" and to speak on being labled a "Sell Out" :
I would hope that people know at this point that I'm smart enough to know what I'm doing. I always intended putting out something urban right after 'Starship' because I knew 'Starship' was a monster. I didn't feel the pressure to be honest. I feel really, really good. I feel like Hip-Hop cares enough that they have something to say and I remember when I was hoping that somebody had something to say about me on the radio or cared enough. Maybe it would be a problem if I couldn't deliver records like 'Roman Reloaded', but I can. Once again, I write my own lyrics so it's never a problem. Whatever I feel … I can write and I can create it, so I'm good.
I think that people sometimes get blown away by the magnitude of the pop stuff because the pop stuff reaches every where. Then I feel like my Hip-Hop fans or Hip-Hop culture starts getting a little bit afraid that I'm going to leave but this is who I am. I'm not going to change. I've just added on to my brand and if you don't understand that then it's probably why you don't travel, you don't see the world and I probably can't even have a conversation with you anymore.
[Roman Reload] is not about anyone in particular. My fans, they're voices are the loudest voices. A critic has never meant a thing to me and that's why I keep winning. So we're really good on this side Flex and 'Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded" drops April 3rd and the Barbz and Romanz Empire will be good, really good.


text:
HRs shorten Carroll's outing, end White Sox streak
Right-hander allows six runs over four-plus; Abreu limited by ankle
CHICAGO -- Scott Carroll admittedly was more excited for his inaugural Crosstown Cup contest against the Cubs on Thursday night at U.S. Cellular Field than he was for his Major League debut on April 27 after 138 Minor League games over eight seasons.
That excitement unfortunately didn't translate into success during the Cubs' 12-5 shellacking before 26,332 on one of the warmest nights of the year, which also featured a 20-to-26 mph wind blowing from right to left. Carroll (1-1) yielded six runs on 11 hits over four-plus innings, whereas he gave up just one earned run over his first 13 1/3 innings.
Thursday's issue for Carroll centered on a lack of location. It also had a great deal to do with the Cubs (12-21), who knocked out 15 hits, including home runs from Anthony Rizzo, Starlin Castro and Mike Olt.
"They swung it; it just wasn't our night," said White Sox manager Robin Ventura of the setback. "We just weren't pitching that great. You know, just a lot of guys on. It just seemed like every inning they had a lot of guys on and they were knocking them in."
"It was just a situation where I didn't have my best stuff," Carroll said. "I left a few pitches out when I obviously didn't have the ability to do so. I was kind of just fighting it the whole time, but you know what, I just have to tip my hat off to them. They had some good at-bats against me."
Ventura's crew actually grabbed a 2-0 lead in the second against Jake Arrieta, but that advantage was erased by a four-run Cubs third. Rizzo went deep after a Ryan Kalish triple and a Luis Valbuena single in that frame.
Those three hits came on back-to-back-to-back pitches from Carroll.
"We missed a couple spots there," said White Sox catcher Tyler Flowers, who singled and drove in two. "They became aggressive early in the count, which is fine, but we've just got to do a better job locating those pitches early on.
"For whatever reason, the sinker wasn't sinking as much as usual. It was kind of just running a little bit more, so it stayed up in the zone a little bit more than we liked."
Even with the numerous scoring opportunities against Carroll, the White Sox (18-18) only trailed by a 6-4 margin in the eighth. The Cubs put the game out of reach with a five spot against the previously unhittable White Sox bullpen, ending the relievers' scoreless streak at 23 1/3 consecutive innings.
Maikel Cleto absorbed the five-run damage, with much of it coming on Olt's first career grand slam. Cleto also walked three over two innings and wasn't helped by Moises Sierra's attempt in right on Rizzo's long fly ball that was ruled a double but appeared catchable.
"I came up with the bases loaded [in the third] and I didn't come through and I was upset with myself because with less than two outs, I've got to at least get someone in, move someone over," Olt said. "I've got to do my job. To get another chance late in the game and come through like that definitely helped."
Jose Abreu's health was of greater concern to the White Sox than Olt's grand slam or their inability to sweep four games from their North Side rivals. Abreu tweaked the same left ankle that bothered him during Spring Training and appeared to be running at less than full speed for much of Thursday's game.
Marcus Semien pinch-hit for Abreu in the ninth, although Ventura didn't seem too alarmed about his rookie first baseman's overall condition.
"He just seemed like he was limping a little bit tonight, that's why in the end there I took him out," Ventura said. "He says he's fine. He's limping around a little bit, but he'll be fine."
When asked if he would consider moving Abreu to designated hitter until the soreness subsided, Ventura said it was possible.
"But he had this before," said Ventura of Abreu, who was receiving treatment postgame. "He says it's not like it was in Spring Training, so I don't expect him to be out."
Six Cubs pitchers, including winning hurler Brian Schlitter (2-0), gave up 13 hits to the White Sox. There were no extra-base hits among the 13, with Alexei Ramirez leading the way with his four-hit effort and his 15th multi-hit game of the season.
"The White Sox had a lot of hits as well and we limited their damage -- we did more damage than they did today," Rizzo said.
Arizona stands as next up on the Interleague docket for the White Sox, who saw their season-high four-game winning streak come to an end. They will quickly forget about tying a season high for runs allowed and their fifth loss in the last eight games to the Cubs.
"Obviously, no one's too happy with the game today, so kind of just wash that one and get ready again for tomorrow and Arizona," Flowers said. "Before tonight we played good ball. Today, we just kind of got our butts kicked."
"You know, it's a loss," Ventura said. "We would like to win it, but it wasn't our night. It was their night. We're moving on to tomorrow."
Scott Merkin is a reporter for MLB.com. Read his blog, Merk's Works, and follow him on Twitter @scottmerkin. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.


text:
You are a fan of fraternity software ? Come to discover the best forums fraternity software on the internet and share your experience with a community fan of fraternity software . You can also build a forum fraternity software and create your online discussion.
Chess2U is a place to discuss and share anything related to Computer Chess! So you will need Chess2U to keep up with Chess progress!
computer, chess, engines, opening, books, free, engine, #software, download, best, news
Digital Art and Products by Angela Hobbs. ~ DIGITAL ART ~ SCRAP KITS ~ SOFTWARE ~ TUTORIALS ~ FREEBIES
digi, scrap, cafe, graphics, taggers, digital, kits, scrapbooking, artists, designers, resources, community, social, challenges, contests, tutorials
free forum : VOIP Software And Billing Solution. free forum : Best VOIP Softswitch And Billing
free, best, voip, softswitch, billing
Products and Tunes and useful information about your MINI/Hyundai/KIA without the banter.
mynes, tuned, yours, performance, fullaccess, hyun/kia, fa53, bytetronik, mini, cooper, tuning, dataviewer, reflash
Find help and support for managing your BreederZOO Pro or Server Dog breeding software database.
We are a collective of like-minded individuals desiring to learn more about programming and developing software, apps, and web design.
codesigners, collective, like-minded, individuals, desiring, learn, more, about, programming, developing, #software, apps, design
Forum for discussing the Catholic Salvation Dogma.
roman, catholic, extra, ecclesiam, nulla, salus, forum, traditional, mass, ewtn, leonard, feeney, scott, hahn, zuhlsdorf, latin, saint, benedict, center, #fraternity, peter, angelqueen, fisheasters, forums, answers
Free forum : Place where serious racers can find clean and competitive racers using the iRacing software.
vsra, iracing, league, simulation, racing, racers, find, clean, competitive, using, #software


text:
7 more definitions
Top Definition
A very good coincidence, often leading to something really awesome.
It was serendipity that I put one quarter in the gumball machine and three came out. :-)
viết bởi Clarrissa Langley
04 Tháng năm, 2004
a fortunate accident.
I got lost and found a bag of money ,what a serendipity.
viết bởi TalkShowsOf1984
16 Tháng chín, 2005
The action of making happy discoveries, by accidents and sagacity, of some thing not initially in quest of.
'I lost a needle in a hay stack last week, however whilst looking for it I found the farmers daughter' - I had to consider this (as she was pretty and willing) a stroke of serendipity.
viết bởi Vandal Savage
21 Tháng năm, 2008
Something pleasant or useful found while looking for something else. Inspired by a Persian fairy story, "The Three Princes of Serendip".
I initially wanted to date Moira, but she turned out to be an awful bore and she snorted when she laughed, which I can't stand. She did however get me in touch with a car dealer who makes really cool custom cars, top quality and dirt cheap, three of which I bought within a year. That was a real piece of serendipity.
viết bởi Fearman
09 Tháng tư, 2008
1. The act of 'stumbling' upon something good or fortunate. Something that makes you happy.
2. Store in NYC
3. A 2001 romantic comedy, starring John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale
2. Store in NYC
3. A 2001 romantic comedy, starring John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale
I was walking along the streets of New York City thinking of the 2001 hit romantic comedy Serendipity when I looked up and saw that I was right in front of the small shop Serendipity. If that doesn't describe the brilliance of sheer serendipity, I don't know what does.
viết bởi Cornu Copiae
29 Tháng một, 2010
Finding the most amazing guy in the world while he is doing laundry on your hall.
aka, a Happy Accident or coincidence
everything happens for a reason.
aka, a Happy Accident or coincidence
everything happens for a reason.
As I saw kevin walking down the hall with his laundry I knew I had to make him mine. Turns out he likes me too and everything falls into place perfectly. Call it serendipity? or fate?
viết bởi Sarbear49
21 Tháng mười hai, 2011


text:
Chuck Norris Facts
Chuck Norris Facts
Chuck Norris Facts
New Facts
Top 50 Facts
Chuck's Favorite Facts
Submit your own fact
Chuck Norris Shirts
Buy Shirts (US)
Buy Shirts (EU)
Design your own shirt (US)
Design your own shirt (EU)
All Facts
Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs.
Chuck Norris is the reason why Waldo is hiding.
Chuck Norris counted to infinity - twice.
There is no chin behind Chuck Norris' beard. There is only another fist.
When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down.
2 of 2925
Design your own Chuck Norris Shirt
Click here to order within Europe
your browser does not support frames


text:
Skip to main content
Welcome to PHA's e-learning center for patients and caregivers!
PHA Classroom, a program of PHA's Medical Education Fund, provides a space for you to participate in live events or watch recordings at your leisure. Classes cover topics ranging from information about pulmonary hypertension to tips on living with PH and ways to fight back.
View all recordings
View live event schedule
Sign up for alerts about new events or recordings
Bayer HealthCareUnited Therapeutics Corporation


text:
Die Rote Zora
Action/Adventure, Drama
In this sun soaked adventure for the entire family, a group of five orphaned children form their own makeshift family while attempting to operate outside the rules of society. Though they must sometimes steal to survive, their loyalty to one another means that they will always have a brother or sister to count on.~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Cast: Pascal Andres, Jakob Knoblauch, David Berton, Nora Quest, Linn Sara Reusse
Produced by:
Directed by: Peter Kahane
Written by: Peter Kahane, Kurt Held
Running time:
1hr 39min
Theaters for Today |
Pick a day
on this day. |