Was it just me or did JT seem happy last night?

[Diesel]

Give me your percentage of how much of the blame you think falls on Lon's shoulder?

Seeing that you have a big problem with me saying 90?

I mean... How much does:

1. Game Preparation (OFFENSE AND DEFENSIVE).

2. IN game adjustments.

3. Player Motivation.

4. Player Rotation.

5. Offensive Scheme (Offensive and Defensive)

6. Defining the roles of the players

mean in Walter's world?

I mean when Email comes out of a timeout and says... "We don't know what to do"... Do you really blame the players? Are the Players 50% of the problem? Come on Walter... Stand up and SAY SOMETHING>>> OR ELSE I will ridcule you to NO END!

[Guest Walter]

While I don't disagree with your assessment that "the economy" doesn't always shift in a matter of nanoseconds, any further implication that the economy of today is Clinton's economy, even two years into Bush's presidency and a year and a half into the biggest top 1% tax cut in US history, is gibberish. Furthermore, are you suggesting that Clinton's presidency, during which, 1 year into his presidency, US economic growth was the largest ever over any 7 year span, wasn't responsible, but the previous Bush presidency was? How about Reagan? Was HE guilty for Bush Sr.'s economic failings? The great Reagan?!? Under your theory HE ALONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR GEORGE BUS SENIOR'S ECONOMIC FAILURE!

The economy shifts in leaps of time that occur with policy. Any shift MAY not be immediate because policy is not immediate, but they do occur in a timely manner, jump started by policy changes and progressing with policy changes. Moreover, the consumer and business often judge policy quickly and their relative confidence does impact the economy quickly even if policy is slower to be inacted.

For example, even the current Bush presidency projected that the benefit from their deficit causing tax cuts would occur within the year (already passed) and that was before the tax rebate was passed. You wouldn't want to suggest that the Bush Presidency was wrong in their assessment of the impact of the tax cuts by three years, would you? Since then, consumer and business confidence has continued to fall. And for good reason. We now have the worse unemployment rate for the last 20 years! Hooray for tax cuts! Our state's economies are the worst they've ever been due to billions in lost tax revenue coming from the federal government and a vast many more unfunded federal mandates. The result are many lost jobs, many of which created jobs in the private sector, lost confidence, oh, I could go on but really, it's all Reagan's fault isn't it (How easy it is to ignore the present)?

...

Internet?!? It's still here and bigger than ever. Why isn't it helping Bush MORE? This year sales on the internet more than DOUBLED yet no economic stimulus (snicker)?!? The real reason? What's the primary economic policy difference in the many years under Clinton and Bush? THE DEFICIT! The deficit and deficit spending! How good is your business when you're always way over your head in the red? Charge it and spend, baby. Charge it and spend.

W

[mrhonline]

I can answer your objections to the "failures" of the Bush Administration without using a single letter:

9/11 - Any economist will tell you how important Consumer Confidence is...

Personally, I think Americans complain about their wallets way too much...99% of Americans live a life billions only dream of around the world even in our "recessions"... I wish more people could keep things in perspective. This democracy wasn't started to guarantee that everyone would have every material desire fulfilled...

[Diesel]

[censored].

Walter and I agree on this economy stuff?

OT.

Rush got you lemmings fooled into believed that everything good in the economy was because of a republican and everything evil was because of Clinton. NOT SO.

Clinton did one thing that was very significant to the economy.

He taxed the Rich.

W Bush is trying to sell the same horse that doesn't work... "Trickle down". If you give the rich a tax break... It will never see the light of day in the middle and Lower classes. It doesn't equate to Jobs... It only makes the rich richer and the poor Poorer.

However, if you tax the rich, you're on your way to economic stability. It worked for the Clinton Administration. Clean up the deficit.

So these $300.00 checks might look really good in the mailbox...and maybe in the public polls....But it only leads to defecit and deficit and soon depression.

So what next? We have to fight a war against somebody to stimulate the economy. We got to take over the oil in the middle east...

Wag the dog... Wag the dog....

[Diesel]

The Economy was going bad before 9/11.

Gore would have put the money in a LOCK box... instead of dispersing the measley $300.00 checks?

[mrhonline]

Ah, yes, the great Lock Box...Man, that was the best stuff to come out of SNL for years...I still can't believe Bore & Dubya actually agreed to appear as themselves...

Politics, smolitix, can't we trade our politicians for players to be named later?

[Playmaker0017]

Walter,

This isn't the place for debates on politics.

It was mentioned to prove a point on transition.

If you would like to continue this diuscussion, please go to the appropriate board. As for calling me right wing, you assume far too much. I am my own kind of politics, I believe in what I feel is right for the country... not some junk fed to me by politicians.

So, if you want to talk about it... go to the other board, and here is some stuff to gobble on:

What I said isn't a "theory" that can be used as a template upon which all presidency's can be based. So, no, I don't blame Reagan for Bush. I blame a congress that tried to overspend to prove a point.

I could have been in office and had the economy jump start during the Clinton administration. It had nothing to do with politics, it was and always will be an anomoly brought about by a technology that was being implemented faster than being understood. The current depression is proof that that misunderstanding. All the tax cuts in the world wouldn't help. It is pendulum shifting and making up for the time that it was too far skewed, under Clinton's "watchful" eye.

Finally, while you ignorantly blather on about Bush Jr., thinking that I actually support his current reign as "king" of the US -- you would be mistaken. Have you seen the bills that he has pushed since being in office? Talk about peeing on that tiny little document called the constitution.

Don't assume too much Walt. You'll only end up sounding dumb, when the other person isn't who you thought.

Play.

[mrhonline]

Thank you, Playmaker. Now we're getting back to what really matters...I knew they're were others who had actually heard of the Constitution...

[Playmaker0017]

MrHOnline,

Yeah, that crazy little document a couple of weird guys got together and thought up.

Personally, I think they have more balls than anyone today. And more brains. What they wrote is almost timeless, almost universal.

Personally, we ought to do it again. Fire the government and install a new one. One that works. But, nowadays, we are happy with our fast food joints, playstations, internet and high salaries. We don't care enough to fight.

Anyhow, let's move this to the other board, lest we get ourselves into trouble.

While the US is still free speech, Hawksquawk is not. P

Play.

[Guest Walter]

If only I had that list of yours when you were "coddling" Lenny Wilkens.

Let's look at that list, shall we?

In reply to:

---

"1. Game Preparation (OFFENSE AND DEFENSIVE).

2. IN game adjustments.

3. Player Motivation.

4. Player Rotation.

5. Offensive Scheme (Offensive and Defensive)

6. Defining the roles of the players"

---

From what I see the players are also responsible for each of the above categories in varying amounts not to mention they are responsible for their own "to do" list. But just to take your list for example. I'm not sure exactly what "game preparation" is by your definition or how the team's play under Stotts has suggested that Lon wasn't doing an equal if not better job of his responsibilities, but it would appear that the players have a great amount of responsibility to come prepared to play (which they haven't). In game adjustments? That would be the thing Stotts hasn't done either, correct? Hard to adjust at times a seemingly heartless bunch of players. Player motivation? You insisted thie was the player's job SOLELY (not Lenny's). Player rotation? Theo is ready to bite the head off of his teamates for not doing their job. Player responsibility. Lon cannot rotate FOR THEM. "Offensive scheme (offensive and defensive)"? I'm confused by that quote. I suspect you mean schemes, period. Regardless, you don't think one ball-handler on the entire team had anything to do with it? Big-hog stealing plays from teamates? NAH. Nothing to do with it. Defining player roles. And if a $14 million dollar man with a history of not living up to his doesn't?

...

I've played enough organized ball to know that one bad player can effect a team more than a coach. We very well may have several "bad" players and just a host of minor flaws (such as 1 ball handler and not ball handler at any position besides Pg, lack of chemistry, etc.). I wouldn't think a coach of Lon's stature more than 50% for ANYTHING that happens to his team (save maybe Phil Jackson in the positive). I wouldn't have thought Lon ANY MORE THAN 30% for what did happen to this team. Now I'd say 20% responsible. I'd still have fired him if only because he bares enough responsibility and firing helps find the other individuals, meaning players and front office, responsible.

W

[Guest Walter]

In reply to:

---

"I don't blame Reagan for Bush. I blame a congress that tried to overspend to prove a point."

---

Why then blame Clinton (after the best 7 economic years in US history) who had a republican congress for Bush's sorry economy when you blame a democratic congress under Reagan for Bush Sr's utter economic failure?

Is it only the democrats, be they president or congressmen, that are worthy of your blame for economic failure even when using your own theory the previous president (presumably 4 years prior) can only be held accountable?

Truth is using your analogy of course, if you are to blame the democratic congress under Reagan for Bush's economic failings, that is in essence blaming the players (congress) and not the coach (president). Which brings me to how it was that your analogy works when you contradict your own theory? Maybe the coach is responsible if he is a democrate or the players if they are democrats. Not sure.

BTW, please do not take this or yourself too seriously.

W

[beav]

"People talk about the economic boom of Clinton. All he did was happen to be in office when the internet happened. It is like a coach with a great team.

Now the economy stinks and people think it is Bush's economy... well it isn't... it is still Clinton's. It won't be Bush's for about four years. "

Umm... I'll defer to being polite here (since this is a basketball board) but not only is your statement pure rubbish and ridiculous it is completely out of place...

If you think that "the internet" was the sole reason for our prosperity and peace for 8 years then you probably believe that the Raptors are the best team in the NBA...

[beav]

I agree with both of you...

will wonders never cease?

[BlackHawkDown]

I can tell you took basic Macroeconomics in college, but you are al ittle bit off. Tax cuts dont necessarily stimulate the economy in the long run. Look at the Japanese econmy since 89 tax cuts have only increased reserves, which are nearly useless because interest rates are nearly 0%. In the case of the US tax cuts and defecit spending does not lead to major boom, The US economy is strong , because the vast majority of world investment in in the US, not Europe or East Asia.

BY the way how in Helll does this convo go from basketball to economic policy.

PS Greenspan has had more of an effect on the economy over the last 20 years than anyone else.

[Playmaker0017]

Walter,

Go to the appropriate board.

If you read what I was saying, I didn't really blame Clinton either. I blamed society for getting to eager with something they couldn't quite understand.

Clinton didn't do anything in office. Good ro bad. I thought he was a great president for that. Most of the time, you didn't even know he was there. Which is pretty much the president's job... don't rock the boat.

And finally, there is no analogy to be made between congress (players) coach (president), since the president has little effect on congresses elections.

You are obviously trying to make a political debate when there is none.

Play.

[Guest Walter]

In reply to:

---

"Now the economy stinks and people think it is Bush's economy... well it isn't... it is still Clinton's."

---

That isn't "blaming" Clinton when under identical circumstances you blame the democratic congress and not Reagan for the economic failure of George Bush senior? Occam's razor when weilded by Hume states you always believe the lesser miracle.

Your theory that the president 4 years before is responsible for the economy now (despite deficit spending, huge tax cut policies, and failing to extend unemployment benefits, etc. by the current president) EXCEPT when the president before was a republican is ludicrious!

Clinton had the 6-7 best years of economic growth in US history. Must be the internet. PULEAZE!

I'm done.

W

[Diesel]

In reply to:

---

From what I see the players are also responsible for each of the above categories in varying amounts not to mention they are responsible for their own "to do" list.

---

OK, let's go into Walter's Gray Area...

How much are the players responsible for in:

1. Offensive and Defensive Gameplan. So you mean Reef, JT, and Big Dog are failing to look at the upcoming team and devise offensive and defensive strategies to play against them. I would say that you are wrong. That is what has been taking place. IN Game, Reef, JT, and Big Dog would do their own thing becuase LON never seemed to devise a Gameplan.

2. In Game adjustments. Coming out of a timeout or a Half, you can gaurantee that the Hawks would get Smoked by the other team... However, I guess, the players should have thought up their own adjustments based on what they were seeing.

3. Player Motivation. OK, I do believe that players should have their own Motivation. However, when the Ship is sinking and those players need somebody to help them grasp "The vision".. Lon Failed misraebly. It's part of the coaches job to make everyone see the vision. One of the coaches tools to accomplish this IS Motivation. Lon didn't.

4. Player Rotation. I guess Big Dog and JT should have said. "Lon I am not coming out just so that you can play: Hendu/Glover/Ham/Email/ and Dickau.

5. Offensive and Defensive Schemes. You know what Walter... You're right. The Players should have protested when the only play in Lon's playbook was the 2 man game.... I mean, no Motion or movement was ever in place. And Lon's defensive strategy was Everyone stand next to a man. No doubles. No traps...

6. Defining the roles. Yeah, each player should have stepped up and said what they would do instead of Letting Lon designate... Can you see it in practice...

JT..." Lon, I'm going to be a SG this Week.".

Big Dog... "If JT's going to be SG, I guess I will play Point forward."

Reef..." Wow, I get killed on the inside So, I'll move back to Small Forward.

Theo... "Reef, You're not going to leave me in there alone, I'll play Pf. We won't need a rebounder.".

Ira... "I'm tired of this label Defensive stopper. I can Shoot too."

Ham " I'm tired of everyone thinking that all I can do is Dunk... I am going to show everyone just how good a ballhandler I can be".

JT.... " Yeah, you run the offense. Just let me set up to shoot the long bomb!"

Big Dog..."what you talking bout Long Bomb. Everybody keeps talking about me as being a "Midrange shooter"... [censored], I can shoot from anywhere. I'm better than Antoine Walker".

Reef..." Just don't throw the ball to me unless you need me. I'm tired of getting hacked all the time... Plus, My back Hurts".

Glover..."This is my contract year. I got to show the world my Glover Love."

Yeah, Walter... Defining the roles is the players responsibility?

Come out of the gray area my friend.

Tell me something definitive.

In reply to:

---

I suspect you mean schemes, period. Regardless, you don't think one ball-handler on the entire team had anything to do with it? Big-hog stealing plays from teamates? NAH. Nothing to do with it. Defining player roles. And if a $14 million dollar man with a history of not living up to his doesn't?

---

Funny. Big Dog didn't destroy Milwaukee. They were almost in the finals two yrs ago. Had they not been injured so much last yr, they would have been in the same position.

http://www.sportingnews.com/sportsbahr/20020419.html

[Playmaker0017]

Walter,

Republican, Democrat... I don't care.

It is Clinton's economy. The internet boom started its deadly decline his last two years in office. He didn't and couldn't do anything to stop it.

What we are facing is a combination of three things:

1) The collapse of the internet age.

2) Lack of consumer confidence, which is simply herd mentality.

3) Sept 11th.

Those three things are ruining the economy today. Not Clinton, not Bush, not anyone.

Now, despite what you read in textbooks, taxation is the devil. It is blatantly unconstitutional and bypasses your constitutionally protected right of self-incrimination. Income taxation is simply an easy way for the government to spy on you. Before there was income taxation, did you know there was never a budget "defecit"? The government needs to unextend itself from running people's lives and remember that all things not set forth herein are granted to the states. Which means that there should be no such thing as FEDERAL anything. We don't live in a federal, we live in a state.

That isn't right wing, that is straight out of the constitution. That is straight factual data. Tax the snot out of my purchases. Incise and Excise. Give it to me.

Income taxation was twisted anyhow. It was created to tax corporations on their earnings. But, then the definition of "entity" was twisted and we end up giving over 50% over to someone else. Someone else knows how to handle my money better than me.

Which is why I like Reagan. He had one goal in office, remove taxation. When he was younger, he was giving 98 cents of every dollar he made (over 40,000) to the govt. Every dollar he earned, he saw 2 cents. He changed that, and despite all the hoopla, it worked and we have prospered.

I say, down with all income taxation. All these federal programs are in place to keep the poor in poverty anyhow. It is to stop them from getting REALLY angry and starting another revolution. It is all about control, and you buy right into it.

I challenge you to present to me one piece of factual data that shows Clinton had anything to do with the economic growth during his tenure? No radical policy changes. Nothing. That is why he was good. He didn't TRY to do anything.

As for George Bush Sr., I misunderstood the question earlier. I thought you were asking me why Reagan's plan failed. Sr is as as dumb as Jr. Between the two of them, they are going to get us killed. And further, with the new one, we won't be able to take a dump without checking with the government first.

Daddy was CIA. Sonny has to finish the job.

The democratic congress was what caused "trickle down" economics to fail. You can't decide to spend more money all the time, despite the fact that you can print it.

The concept is simple, so throw out you Macroeconomic theory which states that government spending is part of the equation. It isn't, and based on the constitution, should never be. But, let's ignore that. Here is the concept, wrap your mind around it:

Income tax abolished means: Everyone has more money. They can do one of two things. Save (invest) or spend. Either way it provides a boost to the economy as company's will get more money either by way of sales or by way of equity/debt offerings. More sales means that there must be more things produced, and more people to sell them, thus creating more growth. That in turn allows them to invest more into research and development. Which means that there must be more jobs to fill these new roles that will be created through the research. Then these new things must be produced and sold. More jobs. Now, the really tricky part: with more people making more money, then there is more money being saved and invested. Through incise and excise taxing, the state governments would earn income on the increased spending.

Don't let the govenment fool you into believing that income taxation is a neccessity. It isn't. It is a fool who believes the lies the goverment feeds you. Did you know that to bypass the constitution, the hired a third party company to tax you? The IRS is NOT government.

Last time I checked, the constitution strictly FOREBADE the government from spying on its citizens.

In closing, I do not support any of the Bush's. They are the worst thing that could happen to the country, besides universal healthcare. I was using the example as an analogy. But, I digress and again say that my opinion on politics is this:

poli = many

tics = bloodsucking insects

Play.