Magox

It's right there for everyone to see. The progressivity (sp)? of the US tax code has increased in virtually every metric you can possibly conclude from the data collected by the IRS.

You are one slow thinking puppy. No one disputes that, the point is that raising revenues by a trillion dollars, $100B in added stimulus spending and not reforming the entitlement programs is also a non starter. Does everything need to be spelled out to you? I would also like to hear this explanation, but without the platitudes and parroted talking points.

The net aggregate income inequality has increased, but it has very very little to do with the tax code. Much more so with Globalization. The progressiveness of the US tax code has increased virtually every year since 1980, according to data from the IRS. The top 1%, 5% and 10% have not only increased the aggregate amount of total taxes paid, which is to be expected, but have paid more as a % of revenues collected in the U.S and have paid a higher % of their income to taxes relative to the bottom 50%. In other words, the tax code has almost nothing to do with this development, and the numbers are here for everyone to see. Which debunks what the professor claims regarding US tax policy contributing to the aggregate income inequality. http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0

Then you clearly don't understand the political realities yourself.

Yes, and so is the senate democrats budget that includes a trillion dollars in new revenues and additional 100 Billion in stimulus spending. Which of course has no chance of ever becoming law. It's that simple.

It's natural that what Paul Ryan envisions is something that wouldn't make sense to you. You are way to the left and his budget is way to the right.

What are you? A retard? We're talking about this numbskull

Sure, I'd agree that there could of been a better political choice, such as Rubio... But that's not what we were talking about.

There is a difference between drag and what did he add? Wisconsin is a historically blue state, all he added to the ticket there was a few points... So the better way to have phrased would have been, "Ryan didn't add anything to the ticket" Instead what was said was " i'm not sure ryan was as big of a mistake as palin but it was close" Only a loony leftist would agree with this statement. So I'm assuming you do?

Do you want me to post to you the exit poll data? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57546031/early-exit-poll-60-percent-say-economy-top-issue/ Which ONE of these four issues is the most important facing the country? (CHECK ONLY ONE) Total Obama Romney 5% 56% 33% Federal budget deficit 15% 32% 66% The economy 59% 47% 51% http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012-exit-poll In other words, it wasn't the vision why they voted for Obama, it was that they successfully portrayed him as an out of touch, aristocratic, tax cheating, war on womening corporate fat cat. Also, no one in their right mind agrees with you in regards to Paul Ryan being a drag on the ticket. No one.

Wow! "keep letting the rich bank accounts siphon a bigger and bigger chunk of available money from everybody else." This totally disregards facts. Which doesn't surprise me coming from the source. According to the tax foundation which compiled data directly from the IRS, the average rate paid by the top 1% in 2008 paid Adjusted Gross Income of 20% of the total revenues collected. In 1980, the top 1% paid 8.46% of total revenues collected. Since 1980, the total share of revenues from the top 1% has been steadily increasing, with the exceptions of down years caused by recessions. Also, speaking of the progressivity of the US tax code, the top 1% pay after deductions 24.01%, the bottom 50% pay 1.85%. As income rises, the level of taxes paid as a percentage increases. Also at the bottom of the page, if you look at the progressiveness of the tax code, you will see that ever since 1980, the US tax code has steadily gotten more progressive. In 1980 the top 1% paid a rate of 34.47%... The bottom 50% paid a rate of 6.1%, which means that the 1% paid a little less than 600% higher rates than the bottom 50%. In 2009, the top 1% paid a rate of 24.28% and the bottom 50% paid a rate of 1.85%, which means that the 1% paid more than 1300% higher rates than the bottom 50%. In other words the US tax code has exponentially increased the progressiveness of taxes paid. http://taxfoundation...come-tax-data-0 Read it! Which means that you are totally full of ****, and once again just shows that you are talking out of your ass. Also, "siphoning" the "available money"??? What the !@#$ does that mean? Who's money is it? and from where are they siphoning it from? You are right about one thing, it is like a mental disease.

Yes, because reforming the entitlements is a really popular poll tested thing to do.

I would hope, real cheap.

I would tend to agree with you... However, I would assume he would be playing the traditional pass rushing OLB as opposed to Bradham, and he doesn't have much of a history of getting after the QB.

Hold on a second, you mean all those attack ads about the war on women, Romney being a vulture capitalist, Bain capital responsible for killing people, questioning whether he paid taxes or not, shipping jobs overseas wasn't a large reason why he won the elections.? Or Romney's stance on immigration? Please, let's not delude ourselves, exit polls actually showed people liked Romney's plans for the economy more so than Obama. So your point is invalid What I find to be funny is that the very same people who parroted all these attacking talking points from the president, "Bain Capital, tax cheat, ships job overseas, war on women etc". Now gloss over the central theme of their election campaign which was to discredit their opponent, all say that it was because he won the war of ideas. Puhleeaase

Does the 4M signing bonus get prorated throughout the contract?

How does that reach $20M?

I believe that sounds about right to me... If he were on a decent team, he'd most likely be a pro bowler.

Great!!!

I saw that this morning....

On a mildly related note, it appears that 0 down mortgage loans are back. Amazing that it hasn't even been a full five years since one of the largest melt downs in our history and here we are repeating some of the same crap that got us into this mess in the first place.

So the author of that article you posted is written from a man named Mason Inman....Personally, when I read something I liked to know who wrote it so I can understand from what perspective they are coming from and see if they have an agenda behind what it is they are trying to communicate. Google search on Mason Inman finds that he is a regular contributor for the Huffington . His specialty? Climate Change. He's also communications director for Near Zero, an organization committed to moving the world to near zero green house emissions. The articles he's written for the online National Geographic have primarily dealt with Climate change. So I'd say he has an agenda and you have to take what he says with a grain of salt. The state department recently released their report on the Keystone Pipeline, mind you, the department is headed with people who Obama has tapped to be in charge, and their findings have concluded that there are no environmental red flags, and that if we didn't build it, the Canadians would follow through with their plans without us and that there would be even more greenhouse emissions.

So this is the garbage that is being taught today.

If you were to take the study at face value, there wouldn't be any savings for Medicare. However, Medicaid and insurance premiums would be areas that you most likely would see savings, considering that the vast majority of private health insurance plans are for those under 65 (excluding Medicare supplements) and Medicaid.

According to this study: However it did note this at the bottom And as to my motives: I guess according to this guy, my intentions weren't the "right" ones.