Making Money Without

It doesn’t feel right.

Ted Dibiase had a good little match on WWE SmackDown this past Friday night against Tyson Kidd. Teddy looked good in the ring and had the crowd behind him.  He’s got a great smile and a good look.

He seems to have it all.

And, yet it just does not feel right.

The smile seems forced.  His entrance theme, proclaiming “I come from money,” is more suited for a heel than a baby face and so far there’s not been much going for Ted besides his short-lived heat with former tag team partner Cody Rhodes.

Let’s face it.  Ted is not a face.  It‘s not him.

One razor sharp glare from Ted, along with that emotionless scowl that we are so accustomed to seeing on his face, that is what I expect from him.  That’s what suits him.

Instead, we’re getting this watered down Alex Riley push that so far has done a whole lot of nothing for Dibiase.

Actually, when I think of Ted, he does remind me of Riley, in terms of his overall push and what he brings to the ring.  Although Ted seems more fundamentally sound than Alex in his skill set, the truth is they’re both young with generic gimmicks and have become nothing more than cookie cutter WWE Superstars.  

Ted’s initial face turn from Cody was indeed very reminiscent of Riley’s turn on The Miz, but with one huge difference.  

Riley’s was well timed and very well done, while Ted’s was just convoluted and weak in the execution.  Despite that, Ted’s star has not exactly fallen on SmackDown.

Of course, it hasn't risen much either.

While Ted is much better as a heel, another problem exists for him on the Friday night program.  
Ted’s heel gimmick is that of the arrogant, cocky heel who’s better than everyone else and is supremely confident in his ability.  That’s good, it does work for him and he plays the role nicely.  The problem is, that character is already being portrayed in a sense by Cody Rhodes, who is currently getting a main event push against Randy Orton.

It’s basically one of those “this town ain’t big enough for the two of us” situations.

If WWE creative—arguably two words that do not always belong together—insist on making Ted a baby face then something needs to change.

First off, the music needs to go.  Again, it does not fit now, as WWE is attempting to move Dibiase past the spoiled rich kid gimmick that made him so hated in the first place.  So, how do you separate him from the shadow of his old man’s gimmick?

Perhaps the most obvious way is the best way.  If Junior is now face, maybe Senior should now turn heel.

Ted Sr. could be disappointed in his son’s progress, especially when comparing him to Cody Rhodes, the man he turned on in the first place.  Disgusted at Junior for not achieving his full potential, he could even threaten to cut the young Superstar out of the will.

How would a newly minted baby face respond to a threat such as this?  “You know what?  Keep your money.  You’ve been holding that over my head my whole life.  I’m making my own way now, and I’m going to do it without you, and without your bank account.”

Ted Jr. emerges squeaky clean, and lays to rest all of the negative aspects of his character.  A clean slate means a fresh start, and perhaps that would elevate him a little more in the minds of the fans.
If that doesn’t work, there’s always the Tony Stark gimmick.

Tony Stark, for all you non fan boys out there, is Iron Man, played perfectly by one Robert Downey Jr. Stark, the son of a billionaire, inherited his riches and his father’s head for business.  He’s a ladies’ man and bad boy, shrewd, but very likable, and deep down is a good guy just trying to do the right thing.

This would fit Ted Dibiase Jr. more than any other edge his character has ever had.

It’s not the end of the world for this kid.  Just because he’s not doing much right now does not mean that he can’t do something in the future.  So, there is no need to dismiss him as unimportant or believe that he is just going to fade away.

However, I do believe that he is capable of more than what he’s being allowed to do right now, and with the proper storyline and approach to his character, Ted could wind up having a potentially great WWE career.

Bank on it.

Congress this week finds itself in a predicament of its own making.

To show how serious they are about solving America’s deepening fiscal crisis, Republicans insisted that the 2011 Budget Control Act require the House and the Senate to vote on a balanced budget amendment (BBA) before the end of the year. Yet from a range of BBA options—from weak to mild to robust—the House has chosen to vote on a version that does little to ensure less spending and lower taxes.

This is no way to amend the Constitution or solve the massive problem the country faces: a bloated federal government that operates far beyond its means, making unlimited promises that feed escalating debts and will cripple the U.S. economy, undermine America’s prosperity, and lead to national insolvency.

Federal spending in 2011 was $3.6 trillion, an all-time record. When adjusted for inflation, this is more than three times the peak level of World War II. Today’s enormous budget deficits—they have exceeded $1 trillion in each of the past three years—are a symptom of that excessive spending.

Indeed, government spending is the source of every fiscal consequence; it is spending that creates the need for taxes and borrowing. This is why formulations that call for reducing deficits through a mix of spending cuts and tax increases are misguided. Controlling spending is the key to balancing budgets.

In the immediate term, Congress should address this problem by pursuing a reform path that drives down federal spending and borrowing and gets to a balanced budget. Saving the American Dream is Heritage’s plan to do just that: balancing the federal budget in 10 years and keeping it balanced in the future—without raising taxes or neglecting our national defense. Starting immediately, Congress should take every opportunity to cut and cap federal spending, and that includes addressing the unsustainable costs of America’s entitlement programs.

A part of the long-term agenda to rein in government is an appropriate and sound amendment to the Constitution that would keep federal spending under control in subsequent years. Indeed, the principal reason for adopting a balanced budget constitutional amendment is to limit the size and scope of the federal government by limiting its spending.

Proponents have long advocated this extraordinary step because other methods of controlling spending—by rule or statute—have broken down. What was once considered part of the nation’s “unwritten” constitution—that as a rule the government should not spend beyond its means—has been lost. A constitutional rule, if properly written and enforced, would have more power than any legislative mechanism for maintaining a limit on spending.

As Heritage’s David Addington has previously stated, a BBA should do three core things.

1. First, it should control spending, taxation, and borrowing by capping annual spending and requiring Congress to act by supermajority votes if Members wish to raise taxes. These requirements are especially necessary under current circumstances—prior to having seriously reduced spending and reformed entitlement programs, the main drivers of the country’s debt.


2. Second, it should allow Congress by supermajority votes to waive temporarily compliance with the balanced budget requirement when it is essential to national security—the one core function that is the federal government’s exclusive constitutional responsibility.


3. Third, it should provide for its own enforcement, specifically excluding courts from any enforcement and preventing government from just borrowing more money to meet the BBA requirement.

A BBA without these provisions doesn’t address the underlying spending problem, puts pressure on Congress to increase taxes or issue more debt rather than cut spending or reform entitlements, and invites unelected judges to insert themselves even more in the policymaking process. Which is to say that, rather than simplifying matters, a weak BBA would likely make the situation much worse.

To be sure, a more definitive BBA is no easy matter. Additional provisions bring complications, add more moving parts, and may introduce into the Constitution’s principled framework policy outcomes that should remain the prerogative of the legislative process. While considerable work has been done to develop a robust amendment, questions of amendment language (both in terms of operational construction and enforcement) have not yet sufficiently been resolved to meet the high and deliberative standard of the United States Constitution.

Nevertheless, the best way to press this discussion—which will surely not end with the current Congress—would be to place the strongest marker available on the table, aimed less at vote tallies and more at framing a national discussion on how to solve America’s most urgent problems.

And remembering that successful constitutional amendments represent the codification of a new consensus resulting from a settled political debate, the best way for this Congress to advance a BBA—and the cause of limited government—is to consistently, persistently, and successfully pursue spending reductions and fiscally responsible actions aimed at actually balancing the federal budget.

carpet cleaning atlantacarpet cleaning atlantacarpet cleaning atlantacarpet cleaning atlanta

carpet cleaning atlanta carpet cleaning atlanta carpet cleaning atlanta carpet cleaning atlanta carpet cleaning atlanta carpet cleaning atlanta carpet cleaning atlanta carpet cleaning atlanta carpet cleaning atlanta carpet cleaning atlanta carpet cleaning atlanta carpet cleaning atlanta carpet cleaning atlanta carpet cleaning atlanta

It doesn’t feel right.

Ted Dibiase had a good little match on WWE SmackDown this past Friday night against Tyson Kidd. Teddy looked good in the ring and had the crowd behind him.  He’s got a great smile and a good look.

He seems to have it all.

And, yet it just does not feel right.

The smile seems forced.  His entrance theme, proclaiming “I come from money,” is more suited for a heel than a baby face and so far there’s not been much going for Ted besides his short-lived heat with former tag team partner Cody Rhodes.

Let’s face it.  Ted is not a face.  It‘s not him.

One razor sharp glare from Ted, along with that emotionless scowl that we are so accustomed to seeing on his face, that is what I expect from him.  That’s what suits him.

Instead, we’re getting this watered down Alex Riley push that so far has done a whole lot of nothing for Dibiase.

Actually, when I think of Ted, he does remind me of Riley, in terms of his overall push and what he brings to the ring.  Although Ted seems more fundamentally sound than Alex in his skill set, the truth is they’re both young with generic gimmicks and have become nothing more than cookie cutter WWE Superstars.  

Ted’s initial face turn from Cody was indeed very reminiscent of Riley’s turn on The Miz, but with one huge difference.  

Riley’s was well timed and very well done, while Ted’s was just convoluted and weak in the execution.  Despite that, Ted’s star has not exactly fallen on SmackDown.

Of course, it hasn't risen much either.

While Ted is much better as a heel, another problem exists for him on the Friday night program.  
Ted’s heel gimmick is that of the arrogant, cocky heel who’s better than everyone else and is supremely confident in his ability.  That’s good, it does work for him and he plays the role nicely.  The problem is, that character is already being portrayed in a sense by Cody Rhodes, who is currently getting a main event push against Randy Orton.

It’s basically one of those “this town ain’t big enough for the two of us” situations.

If WWE creative—arguably two words that do not always belong together—insist on making Ted a baby face then something needs to change.

First off, the music needs to go.  Again, it does not fit now, as WWE is attempting to move Dibiase past the spoiled rich kid gimmick that made him so hated in the first place.  So, how do you separate him from the shadow of his old man’s gimmick?

Perhaps the most obvious way is the best way.  If Junior is now face, maybe Senior should now turn heel.

Ted Sr. could be disappointed in his son’s progress, especially when comparing him to Cody Rhodes, the man he turned on in the first place.  Disgusted at Junior for not achieving his full potential, he could even threaten to cut the young Superstar out of the will.

How would a newly minted baby face respond to a threat such as this?  “You know what?  Keep your money.  You’ve been holding that over my head my whole life.  I’m making my own way now, and I’m going to do it without you, and without your bank account.”

Ted Jr. emerges squeaky clean, and lays to rest all of the negative aspects of his character.  A clean slate means a fresh start, and perhaps that would elevate him a little more in the minds of the fans.
If that doesn’t work, there’s always the Tony Stark gimmick.

Tony Stark, for all you non fan boys out there, is Iron Man, played perfectly by one Robert Downey Jr. Stark, the son of a billionaire, inherited his riches and his father’s head for business.  He’s a ladies’ man and bad boy, shrewd, but very likable, and deep down is a good guy just trying to do the right thing.

This would fit Ted Dibiase Jr. more than any other edge his character has ever had.

It’s not the end of the world for this kid.  Just because he’s not doing much right now does not mean that he can’t do something in the future.  So, there is no need to dismiss him as unimportant or believe that he is just going to fade away.

However, I do believe that he is capable of more than what he’s being allowed to do right now, and with the proper storyline and approach to his character, Ted could wind up having a potentially great WWE career.

Bank on it.

Congress this week finds itself in a predicament of its own making.

To show how serious they are about solving America’s deepening fiscal crisis, Republicans insisted that the 2011 Budget Control Act require the House and the Senate to vote on a balanced budget amendment (BBA) before the end of the year. Yet from a range of BBA options—from weak to mild to robust—the House has chosen to vote on a version that does little to ensure less spending and lower taxes.

This is no way to amend the Constitution or solve the massive problem the country faces: a bloated federal government that operates far beyond its means, making unlimited promises that feed escalating debts and will cripple the U.S. economy, undermine America’s prosperity, and lead to national insolvency.

Federal spending in 2011 was $3.6 trillion, an all-time record. When adjusted for inflation, this is more than three times the peak level of World War II. Today’s enormous budget deficits—they have exceeded $1 trillion in each of the past three years—are a symptom of that excessive spending.

Indeed, government spending is the source of every fiscal consequence; it is spending that creates the need for taxes and borrowing. This is why formulations that call for reducing deficits through a mix of spending cuts and tax increases are misguided. Controlling spending is the key to balancing budgets.

In the immediate term, Congress should address this problem by pursuing a reform path that drives down federal spending and borrowing and gets to a balanced budget. Saving the American Dream is Heritage’s plan to do just that: balancing the federal budget in 10 years and keeping it balanced in the future—without raising taxes or neglecting our national defense. Starting immediately, Congress should take every opportunity to cut and cap federal spending, and that includes addressing the unsustainable costs of America’s entitlement programs.

A part of the long-term agenda to rein in government is an appropriate and sound amendment to the Constitution that would keep federal spending under control in subsequent years. Indeed, the principal reason for adopting a balanced budget constitutional amendment is to limit the size and scope of the federal government by limiting its spending.

Proponents have long advocated this extraordinary step because other methods of controlling spending—by rule or statute—have broken down. What was once considered part of the nation’s “unwritten” constitution—that as a rule the government should not spend beyond its means—has been lost. A constitutional rule, if properly written and enforced, would have more power than any legislative mechanism for maintaining a limit on spending.

As Heritage’s David Addington has previously stated, a BBA should do three core things.

1. First, it should control spending, taxation, and borrowing by capping annual spending and requiring Congress to act by supermajority votes if Members wish to raise taxes. These requirements are especially necessary under current circumstances—prior to having seriously reduced spending and reformed entitlement programs, the main drivers of the country’s debt.


2. Second, it should allow Congress by supermajority votes to waive temporarily compliance with the balanced budget requirement when it is essential to national security—the one core function that is the federal government’s exclusive constitutional responsibility.


3. Third, it should provide for its own enforcement, specifically excluding courts from any enforcement and preventing government from just borrowing more money to meet the BBA requirement.

A BBA without these provisions doesn’t address the underlying spending problem, puts pressure on Congress to increase taxes or issue more debt rather than cut spending or reform entitlements, and invites unelected judges to insert themselves even more in the policymaking process. Which is to say that, rather than simplifying matters, a weak BBA would likely make the situation much worse.

To be sure, a more definitive BBA is no easy matter. Additional provisions bring complications, add more moving parts, and may introduce into the Constitution’s principled framework policy outcomes that should remain the prerogative of the legislative process. While considerable work has been done to develop a robust amendment, questions of amendment language (both in terms of operational construction and enforcement) have not yet sufficiently been resolved to meet the high and deliberative standard of the United States Constitution.

Nevertheless, the best way to press this discussion—which will surely not end with the current Congress—would be to place the strongest marker available on the table, aimed less at vote tallies and more at framing a national discussion on how to solve America’s most urgent problems.

And remembering that successful constitutional amendments represent the codification of a new consensus resulting from a settled political debate, the best way for this Congress to advance a BBA—and the cause of limited government—is to consistently, persistently, and successfully pursue spending reductions and fiscally responsible actions aimed at actually balancing the federal budget.

http://forum.mu-kaimas.lt/index.php?action=profile;u=38563;sa=summary http://forum.phuketnext.com/index.php?action=profile;u=35200;sa=summary http://femflex.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=129964;sa=summary http://3bindustries.com/support/index.php?action=profile;u=744001;sa=summary http://alabamafishingbuddy.com/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=14831;sa=summary http://anubis-tattoo.com/www/index.php?action=profile;u=47489;sa=summary http://anyveteran.org/smf/index.php?action=profile;u=47124;sa=summary http://arizona.ghostlygateway.co.uk/forums/index.php?action=profile;area=summary;u=48819 http://board.psd-dreams.net/index.php?action=profile;area=summary;u=6885 http://canoenglish.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=5598;sa=summary http://chudahs-corner.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=41251;sa=summary