mikecgrimes

The assumption that Donald Trump and Republicans are going to be incapable of reducing the debt because they started with a tax cut is interesting. This is like the people that knee jerk react to the Twins signing a bullpen arm that they didn't get a starter. We'll see what happens but we aren't done. I know I know a program you like will be cut and that's not OK with you. Maybe if we call Republicans stupid over and over that will help.

It would be great programming and a selling point for the WWE Network. Maybe it would allow for a slight increase in the monthly rate.

Are we having a trickle down economics debate or are we discussing who should see the bulk of any tax cut legislation. Corporations making money helps me. As for trickle down I guess when we decide $600 or $1000 doesn't matter (especially if the wrong political party is getting credit) then how can trickle down ever get work? When it works it doesn't count but if there isn't evidence of it working in specific examples that fact is never ignored. But hey what do I know I'm stupid and a fool, that's what you think. Good thing I don't care that you people think that way.

As for the question my answer is as clear of a no as I can give you. As for the point you use to suggest they don't deserve a tax cut, that is great news for them and has nothing to do with their obligation to fund government. We need to cut government and when we do we should first give back to those we take the most from. This is not a welfare program or a handout this is a decreased in tax rates. If and when your side gets power again I know who will be targeted first the job creators and risk takers that make this economy work. You might disagree with that but thankfully our side is in power now.

Has there ever been one that wasn't? I guess I'll have to vote again this November and hopefully flip two US Senate seats so we can continue to see tax cuts.

I know I'm very stupid, but let me look at my pay stub again. More money is bad right?

The bump came before the state of union of which we still have no fully post SOTU polls.

He tweeted that so the media would report the yeah but the media countered with. He tweeted that to control the narrative. He tweeted that because once the context is lost any minor error in the now widely reported numbers will look really bad. He tweeted that because the predictable responses does little to no damage but the potential benefit is significant. He tweeted that because he's always thinking at least two moves ahead. Maybe I'm wrong and you're right, but look at all these sorts of things in hindsight and the pattern is clear.

Most recent polls are showing huge movement. I think a major political mistake was made when Democrats made it sound like the average citizen was getting a tax increase and people are taking a close look at their pay checks and seeing real disposable income. I believe Trumps political skill is to bait his opponents into not thinking politics when countering him, and without economic collapse he and Republicans will continue to trend upwards.

It's fun watching the response to the speech last night. I don't know where this is all going, but unless something drastic happens I don't think November will be great for Democrats, maybe OK or good but not great.

Would you feel better if Buxton was still in triple A sitting at 90th?

While I get the idea of not getting stuck in bad contracts I sometimes find it odd that we are more worried about years then dollars. I just saw a suggestion of 3 years 100. For argument sake say it would take 6 years 145. To me if I had the choice of locking in on years 4 5 and 6 at 45 million today I almost find that's a better risk then the front end. The key on these long term contracts to me is making sure the player is good enough to make an impact. A lot of people around town(specifically Judd Zulgad) look at what the Wild have done and are afraid of any long term deals, but NHL free agency is different, the best players are never free agents, long term deals to great but not superstar players in that league will never work. The bad contracts end up staring you in the face, but what people ignore is the ones that worked out the way they should, demanding that any big contract works out great, What the Twins really need is to be able to say they have the better pitcher the majority of the time, adding a front of the rotation guy will make a huge difference probably for at least 4 years even if he drifts to being a middle of the rotation or even eventually bullpen arm.

I was worried about this sort of thing with Sano going into the offseason and was hoping for a trade. I think despite a drop in value I would still move him as I just don't see him as I think the homerun is overvalued and if Escobar can be the player he was last year for a full season he's a more valuable player, plus the free agent market is still open and we could go in a different direction to replace him. When he changed agents I started to question everything about him. On the other hand he is capable of improving at the plate to be a very valuable player, but I'd bet on Buxton hitting .280+ with 40 Homeruns before Sano.

If you know berrios and Santana will be fine then sure. There's a 50% chance one will suffer a long term injury or have an era around 5. We need depth until your 8 quality starters deep with no question marks you need more.

It seems to me Darvish uses twitter in an odd way. If he thinks other teams are going to up there offer because the Brewers made an offer he's wrong. If Brewers offer is 6 years 125-135 other teams aren't gonna care and neither is Darvish. Nothings gonna happen until someone offers an extra $25 million plus or until June.