Hts121

That's some impressive chest-pounding...

^They are highly speculative. We have plenty of soldiers who returned all "messed up" even if not physically disabled. You could speculate that even those soldiers would have turned out to be more productive members of society had they never had to endure war..... but there is no way to know for sure. When I was saying earlier that we are barely scratching the surface, I was speaking more towards direct costs as you and I agree they should be limited to. I will tell you one industry that is getting a windfall from the wars....... domestic relations law.

Does the "welfare" a permanently brain damaged soldier will require for the rest of his/her life constitute a "direct cost"?

No need to "cut people off" medical entitlements..... but the system needs some major revamping and, more importantly, increased enforcement and harsher penalties. I agree that raising the age of retirement (in a gradual manner) is the most practical way to deal with SS. There also needs to be rules against poaching those funds for other purposes.

I've seen this comment a lot in response to the report...... but the overall white population still constitutes a majority and we have a long way to go before that changes.

^^I think Jackson (and 327) was referring to up-down duplexes

Liberal here. That wouldn't be my first response. I would put the overseas campaigns and "domestic wars" far above tax cuts. Worst part is, I don't think we have even touched the surface of the true costs of these wars. As for the "ask a conservative"...... I think the answer would be much more limited in terms of what a typical self-proclaimed conservative views as the problematic "welfare state". Inner-city poor people and unions are the problems in their view...... corporate welfare, handouts to farmers, etc..... not so much.

When I go to CBus on business, I usually stop here for lunch - http://flatironcolumbus.com/ - nothing fancy, but I got nothing else for ya. Kind of on the outskirts of downtown. It's convenient for me because it is on the way back to the highway from where I go 90% of the time I am in town.

I wonder how many of these "Melungeons" pulled a Clayton Bigsby and divorced their wives after reading this report.... http://news.yahoo.com/dna-study-seeks-origin-appalachias-melungeons-201144041.html

Medicare/Medicaid - Social Security - Defense. Any conversation about the country's fiscal difficulties starts and ends with those three programs.

Me no likey Barnes as a top 6 pick. I would love to have him on my team, but I would swing for the fences if I was G&G, and I see Barnes' ceiling as a borderline all-star. I want a perreniel all-star with the pick we will have. Yes, Drummond has some red flags........ he is the exact opposite of Barnes in that he is a high risk, high reward type pick. I'm focusing on the three guys you mentioned - Davis, MKG, and Beal....... probably in that order (unless Beal measures out taller than 6'4, which would make me flip-flop him with MKG)

^^^Good morning. I was simply responding to your "most of what he plans" assumption, which is not correct on several fronts. In fact, it might be totally off-base...... maybe you can point out a few "pedestrian-orientied" properties which have in fact been demolished as a direct result of his program?

I read that Michael Kidd-Gilchrist is preparing for the draft here in Cleveland. Kyrie and him were teammates at a HS in New Jersey (he refers to Kyrie as his "best friend") and he is represented by Rich Paul (who did not take his "talents" to South Beach).

I'll bet most of what he plans to destroy is pedestrian-oriented density, and the chance of replacing it with something similar is negligible. "Most" (by a very wide margin) of what I've seen are single family homes on residential streets which have been long abandoned and probably so riddled with code violations that no buyer would ever invest in them. My Dad's old house which he sold in 1997, but the buyers apparently let it deteriorate and there was a major plumbing catastrophe after they moved out, suffered that fate. Too bad, in a way, because that house was in good shape 15 years ago, but it has sat empty for the past 5 and the paint was chipping all over, nobody was cutting the grass, some sign was posted on the front door for years, and it was just a blight on the rest of the street.

Obama 'took over' for Bush in late January 2009. The recession began in December 2007 and "really got going" in the Fall of 2008. Just some points of clarification. And I really don't have a problem with a newly elected administration refusing to take the blame for economic condition caused by the policies of the previous administration and/or congress. Nothing magical happens during the swearing in ceremony which changes things in an instant (no matter what the candidate says they will do "on the first day in office"). It takes at least 6 months to a year for any real impact. What I do have a problem with is the talking heads, the fringe websites and such, trying to place that blame. If in January, February, and March 2013 the economy is losing 400,000 jobs a month, it certainly won't be Mitt's fault...... but the carousel has been set in motion and you better believe that is the spin which will be used (for retribution if nothing else) Hts121: I guess I will never convince you that I have no interest in slanting towards republicans or democrats with my comments. I think both parties have a lot of issues and in the end do what Wall Street and the Fed want. (That is my slant on political economic issues) The democrats were still pointing to the republicans and Bush for the economic mess 2 years into Obama's administration. I also believe if Mitt get elected and things are still in the dumps 2 years later republicans will point at Obama and democrats for the problem. I was just saying that finger pointing is a major tool of both parties. Eaaaaaasssssy Trigger. I wasn't accusing you of any slant..... I was simply correcting the quoted statement. Finger-pointing, by the way, is a major tool used by humans in all walks of life. It is unfortunately in our nature. You need only read your own thread. Isn't that what this discussion has all been about?..... laying the blame here or there for either causing or prolonging the "recession"...... and pointing the finger at why this country is riding the perpetual handbasket to hell?

^^I can't see how a negative ruling would work favorably for Obama. It won't be the death of his candidacy, but it was his signature piece of legislation....... the achievement he can claim which has eluded Democratic presidents (and some Republicans) for more than half a century. And I bet you won't see an significant uptick in hiring if it is struck down and I don't think you will see any slowdown in hiring caused by it being upheld. But to be clear, only the "constitutionality" of the indiviudal mandate is at issue. The meaningful provisions of "Obamacare" (i.e. the end goals he sought in terms of increased coverage) are not under constitutional challenge...... though they could (and likely would) be struck down as not being severable from the individual mandate.

Obama 'took over' for Bush in late January 2009. The recession began in December 2007 and "really got going" in the Fall of 2008. Just some points of clarification. And I really don't have a problem with a newly elected administration refusing to take the blame for economic condition caused by the policies of the previous administration and/or congress. Nothing magical happens during the swearing in ceremony which changes things in an instant (no matter what the candidate says they will do "on the first day in office"). It takes at least 6 months to a year for any real impact. What I do have a problem with is the talking heads, the fringe websites and such, trying to place that blame. If in January, February, and March 2013 the economy is losing 400,000 jobs a month, it certainly won't be Mitt's fault...... but the carousel has been set in motion and you better believe that is the spin which will be used (for retribution if nothing else)

Lola :bang: EDIT: RnR's smackdown arrived before mine ;)

What happened to my "look at me" shiny red stars? Seems like they have disappeared for everyone.

I would agree that the presence of some of those chain restaraunts would indicate that downtown is thriving in terms of having the necessary customer base. But the same can be said for a community which gets a Walmart. In either situation, the long-term consequences outweigh the short term benefits IMO. You may gain some people interested in downtown dining with the addition of a Cheesecake factory, but long-term you run the risk of losing downtown visitors who would never dine there when the independents are driven out of the market. The difference is that people go downtown to dine at Lola...... whereas people would maybe choose to dine at Cheesecake Factory when/if they are downtown. It would be an asset in a sense, not a draw. Local restaraunters are a unique aspect and strength of downtown Cleveland. It is something every travel guru who reviews our city makes mention of. Think about it. Little Italy doesn't have a Ponderosa or Olive Garden. Tremont doesn't have a Chilli's. Asiatown doesn't have a PF Changs. Does that mean those neighborhoods haven't arrived?

I just noticed that four different districts split up both Cuyahoga and Summit. It appears that only Franklin and Portage (which are both split up 3 ways) have more than two. I realize that population probably demands that Cuyahoga not be under one district, but the 4 way split seems a bit out of wack with the rest of the state.

If true, Romney better hope his poll numbers don't continue to climb. I do not think he would want to carry the blame if the economy goes down the toilet in 2013 right after he is sworn in.

Is any part of "Cleveland" in the district? I know some of the western burbs are in it, but I thought the re-districting caused the entire city proper to be redrawn into Fudge's district....

Economists more upbeat about job growth, housing A new survey shows economists are growing slightly more optimistic about recovery in the job and housing markets but expect other pillars of the economy to remain weak. The National Association for Business Economists said in a report issued Monday that its forecasters expect modest growth for the rest of the year, with the pace picking up in 2013. Still, the 54 economists that the association surveyed expect consumer spending, business investment and gross domestic product to remain below historic norms. The quarterly survey compiles expectations for indicators such as hiring, home construction and spending from economists at industry groups, government agencies, banks and consulting firms. http://www.ohio.com/business/economists-more-upbeat-about-job-growth-housing-1.308652

Democratic leaning areas of the state tend to abut bodies of water. Of course the GOP will want to draw lines that dillute democratic support in other areas. It is no different than when North Carolina's GOP drew a district which was something like 100 miles long and just a few miles wide along I-85 between Charlotte and the Triad area. Both sides gerrymander, but since democratic support comes from more densely populated areas (such as along the lake or the Ohio River) or areas where the land is cheaper (such as along a highway), it is just that much more obvious when the GOP does it.