Neo

Without calling myself a Tea Party member, with all its baggage as a label, I will say its core tenants of fiscal responsibility, limited government, and constitutional fidelity are most appealing to me. I am not the Tea Party's defender, but I'll ask you to consider this point of view with regard to spending and investment. Both spending and investment have their place. We spend for today and invest for tomorrow. In our country, we borrow real money our children will be taxed to repay to do both. I think the Tea Party's complaint with "investment" has to do with what government calls investment and how effectively it executes its plan. I remember, some 15 or so years ago, when politicians began substituting the word "investment" for the word "spending". Spending was being scrutinized and investing was being praised. Everything is now investment. For those who are financially inclined, I'll offer an aside. Investment hits a balance sheet. Spending hits an income statement. Now, to continue with an example. Think of our last $800 billion dollar stimulus to "invest in infrastructure". The Tea Party railed against the stimulus when it was being proposed. The criticism wasn't that investment wasn't necessary, it was that it was unfunded and likely to be poorly executed. The next year, following the stimulus, our President appeared on a Jobs Council panel. Responding to a question about how successful the investment had been, he chuckled, smiled, and said "shovel ready was not as shovel ready as we expected". Nearly a billion dollars, much of it down the drain. Funny stuff. Before you say "well, it helped other things", i'll pre-emptively respond "of course it did". You can't throw $800 billion around and not have some impact. It did not, however, do what it was intended and sold to do. The Tea Party suspected that going in. The President acknowledged that after the fact. Investment is good. Spending ... be careful. That's a distinction the Tea Party got at the time.

Yuri, et al. I am not a NeoConservative. I am laughing. NeoCons, in my understanding, are interested in nation building and using American military power to strategic ends. In other words, using military power as a tool to achieve goals after defining the goals as "good". The ends may be good, but the means are folly. On the other hand, I am no isolationist. I believe it's a good idea to have a very strong and capable military in a dangerous world. I'll go beyond a military strong enough to defend our shores and support one strong enough to assist and defend allies. Several steps, I hope, away from isolationism and several short of the hubris of nation building. The screename "Neo" occurred to me after seeing "The Matrix". SabreSpace, to me and in many ways, is a community we all plug into while leading real lives away. It's connected, virtual, and can feel very real. Second thought, though, makes me think Morpheus would have been a better choice for a name. I am more thoughtful second chair than charismatic uber talent. I am fiscally conservative (very) and socially liberal (very). I am afraid the Libertarians would be very disappointed in me. While that label is appealing when I think of myself, I'm afraid i just don't measure up. I consent to be governed to a far greater extent than a Libertarian would. That said, i do not consent to be governed nearly as much as many/most of my friends, family and colleagues. I'm much closer to Libertarian than I am to Progressive. Like, much, closer. I believe drugs should be decriminalized. I consent to speed limits. I don't know much about Bernie Sanders. I understand him to be a Democratic Socialist. To me, that means he shares my view with regard to how people best organize themselves politically. It also means, to me, that he has no idea whatsoever with how people best organize themselves economically. I am enjoying Mr. Sanders' ascension in the polls. At the very least, he'll force Ms. Clinton to address issues (past, present and future) that she'd not have to address in a stroll to the nomination. I wish there were a dozen Democrats in the field. Where are they? To be equally snide with the other side of the aisle, I am enjoying Mr. Trump. The flamboyant brand machine will cause Republicans to speak to issues, as well. With regard to your minimum wage inquiry, let me direct you to this thread and my posts several weeks back. With the intention of not being seen as a pedantic column inch eater, i'll not re-post. Suffice it to say I support many things that government can do to effectively assist people. Again, not nearly as many as those supported by friends and family. It's that damned adverb "effectively" that stops me short time after time. My view is that the minimum wage is not effective. It hurts a little, and doesn't help much. It's an outstanding thing to promise, though, when pandering to voters while running for office.

Yuri and Robin, thoughtful, again. Robin, with additional insight into my proposition and Yuri with the flip side of the government coin, regulation. Interesting tidbit: my wife and I have paid off two student loans (ours), are paying two others (kids), with two to go (more kids). In aggregate, the six loans will be less than some of the single loan numbers I've seen here.

Regarding education (or any good or service) - if purchasers have more or cheaper capital available (below market rate loans or forgivable loans) for a specific product, the aggregate demand increases. Those that can't afford, suddenly can; those that can afford can afford more, or better). The effect on the producer side (colleges) is to raise prices. It costs more because there's more money for it. It'd happen with cars, groceries, and movie tickets. Cars may be better or worse, but they'd be more expensive at all quality points. Same with colleges. NON - partisan comment - this is why I roll my eyes when politicians say "college is too expensive, let's pump some more money into the consumer side". Sounds good if you're a consumer today. Want tuition to fall? Let banks provide student loans at market rates while expecting to be repaid. Overnight, no. Price pressure in the right direction? Yes. Pandering? Diminished. I'm no economist, but ... Imagine a nation that has ten students, ten colleges and has collectively worked for, saved, or borrowed $100 to buy "education". On average, each college will have $10 of revenue. Some may have $12, others $8. Now, imagine the government lowers rates on student loans and forgives a portion of the debt. The same nation may then have $$150 for education. My simple model moves tuition at each college, on average, to $15. Voila, education costs are up 50%. I'm ignoring a gazillion variables to focus on a few. Nothing in a vacuum. Again, I am a huge believer in education. Pricing it out of reach of the general population does no one any good. I don't believe there's no video. There's always video. PS: Yuri was a hero. I dug it most earnestly.

For everyone's consideration - the more capital made available for a good or service, and the cheaper the available capital for said good/service, the higher the cost of that good/service. The availability and subsidy of student loans allows prices to rise. Imagine the cost of cars if government subsidized loans were available for their purchase. Go further with the cost of cars analogy and imagine Ford and GM licking their chops when politicians proposed car loan forgiveness. Now, imagine colleges trying to improve their product in a world of constrained capital, just as all of us are. I will resist references to healthcare, subsidies, and cost curves. I am, however, capable, Jonathan Gruber notwithstanding. If only my good/service were subsidized by forgivable loans. Neo - pro education, pro health-care, each done right.

For anyone there - atmosphere comments?

Poll: What's more impressive? 1). Five goals in a prospect game (Edmonton) 2). 14,000 fans paying to see a prospect game (Buffalo)

I'm down for video of Swamp getting stewed.

Isn't it great that we're not looking for a one dimensional policeman to add grit and toughness? I like John Scott. He's a good man who made a living playing a role several teams needed to fill. With 14 forwards, though, his one dimension left us short in so many ways when he had to dress. Bylsma will have the luxury of team toughness without having to forfeit ability. I don't hear "they're soft" when mentally eavesdropping on opponents game planning. I also don't hear "don't let Scott be a factor and there's not enough skill to hurt us" coming from other teams. Our dialogue is around the bottom six and skills. Two steps forward. All of this from a "we want Ray" chanter for years. The game's changed, and so have I. GMTM > DR. 14 > 13+1.

Waikiki Beach, Fourth of July fireworks, lovely wives and 30th anniversaries, my Navy son, his wife, and my grandchildren .... ... and Mai Tais.

OH - Happy Fourth of July in celebration of the greatest experiment in liberty, freedom, self determination and governance the world has ever seen on a national scale!

Insight.

I didn't see Stafford as floating, but he rarely found that extra gear. I'll always remember him for dropping the gloves instantly and finding Chris Neil. Best wishes, Ducky. Hope we're sparring in a playoff thread soon.

Ducky - you could work in my CFO organization anytime. In the outrageous world of sports salaries, that's insight! We're all a little tipsy in the newly opened Pegulaville bar. With the recent draft, I'm looking forward to a decade long series of Eichel - McDavid battles. I'm equally intrigued by the ascension of Winnipeg and Bogosian/Kane - Myers/Stafford head to heads. Drama, and the game within the game. I dream, but imagine those finals and writers telling the story of GM courage and the building of contenders. Bring it!

Stephane Richer .... Housley went up on one tippie toe at the blue line. Edit: Oops, Taro got it. All in all, though, a great NHL career and deserving of the Hall.

Request, not an assignment. If you're so inclined, I'd love to hear a bit about how, and where, many of you follow these prospects. I'm a "Google and YouTube" guy after reading the names you mention or the ranking lists at different sites. Some of you, though, are seeing games and making notes. Very cool stuff. If you're so inclined.

Toffoli signed to $6.5 million, two year, deal in L.A. (which happens to be where I am, today). $2.6 million and $3.9 million. http://www.sportsxchange.com/tsxfiles/?page_id=211&max_colums=20&story_id=109034 Is this where I post this?

He's throwing everything, including the kitchen sink, at Edmonton to pick the Canadian kid. (kidding inter web smiley face thingy).

Dudacek - this is awesome. Thank you. I've read about skills. Now I see players. All of you, awesome! My "scouting" takes place, besides here, at hockey's future.com, elite prospects.com, YouTube, etc. You know the "Google" drill. Some of you are seeing games, or catching them on TV. I find that very interesting, especially exiled in Florida! Thank you all.

"Heavy lifting". I'm grateful. I'd be interested, your time and taste allowing, for your NHL "comparables" for the kids. It would be interesting to see where your eyes converge and diverge. Open to all, of course.

Out loud, no lie.

That, ladies and gentlemen, was a National Anthem.

Awesome ..

Saw the debut at the Sarasota Film Festival and met the team afterward. Good movie, awesomely passionate team. Recommendations: Anyone in SWFL that can check out the annual festival, do it. Crazy interesting. Further, Hoss - given your animal passion, see this flick. It's likely to affirm my understanding of your views.