WilliamCody
-
Posts
88 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by WilliamCody
-
-
We are a paying a price, however small, for keeping 4 QB's and 3 kickers
Or, are we seeing the ramifications of actually having talent on the roster? And what does it matter if we think of Smith as a 4th QB or a 6th WR. Most would have thought we were going to keep a 6th WR anyway. And, with Potter, his touch backs, guaranteed, will save this team from at least one injury and likely more than one. So you could make the argument that Potter is actually a roster asset because his kicking abilities mean we may not have to shuffle the mid-season roster as much due to injury.
-
I could use some wine to erase the crippling sadness.
-
Yep, that's my old high school. No joking. I played basketball for the Allen Eagles from 1996-1998.
-
If you want all economies to contract heavily and everyone on earth to endure extreme hardship for a generation, sure.
-
Marv said lots of things. He was also a terrible GM.
He's also right about that. If seven rookies make your team, you don't have a lot of talent. We now have talent and are cutting rookies. It's a sign of improvement.
-
We now have enough talent on this team that others are claiming our cast-offs. It's a nice feeling. Best of luck to Asper.
-
This has happened too far away from the election to have any direct connection. But there is a good chance the TEA Party is energized.
-
Also a bit simplistic.
Of course it is. As I have said at least once above, regulations provide a matrix within which corporate decisions must be made.
Even if the only decision a board can make is to comply with yet another government regulation?
I'm actually inclined to think the real question would be who can we hire to help us get around said regulation.
-
So now companies that dont lose money to keep employees are greedy, too huh?
Not at all. But to suggest that it is the government's fault is simplistic. A corporate board must ultimately make its own decisions.
-
'
B-Man that man has no way to prove anything he said b/c there is no way to prove it he's talking out of his ass to try and scare you into being violently against a Bill that hurts his political party. Plain and simple. Wake up.
This guy really sounds like he has a clue.
-
Respectfully Mr. Cody.......those corporate positions did not change in a vacuum,
there were a response to government policy changes....
.
Right. But government policies don't dictate corporate policies. They set parameters.
-
Amid economic recession, a spiraling federal debt, and accelerating increases in government health spending, they proposed a bill that has made these problems worse.“Americans were promised lower health care costs. They’re going up.
“Americans were promised lower premiums. They’re going up.
“Most Americans were promised their taxes wouldn’t change. They’re going up.
“Seniors were promised Medicare would be protected. It was raided to pay for a new entitlement instead.
“Americans were promised it would create jobs. The CBO predicts it will lead to nearly 1 million fewer jobs.
“Americans were promised they could keep their plan if they liked it, yet millions have learned they can’t.
“And the President of the United States himself promised up and down that this bill was not a tax.
“This was one of the Democrats’ top selling points — because they knew it would have never passed if they said it was. The Supreme Court has spoken. This law is a tax.
“This bill was sold to the American people on a deception. But it’s not just that the promises about this law weren’t kept. It’s that it’s made the problems it was meant to solve even worse.
“The supposed cure has proved to be worse than the disease.
“So it’s not just that the promises about this law weren’t kept. It’s that it has made the problems it was meant to solve even worse.
The bolded are a result of CORPORATE policy, not government.
-
It would demenstrate to the voter before the elections who the idiots were that voted for the biggest TAX INCREASE in American history.
Yes, it might work as a political stunt. But in terms of generating meaningful action or debate it would be a failure.
-
Not a serious question right?
We just need a lockbox for the ACA tax money, so that it will be there to cover the costs of ACA.
When has Congress ever been able to keep their hands out of a cookie jar filled with money?
It was a serious question. Were there any provisions for the use of the tax in the bill?
-
To me, it only functions how it's written. And it's not written as a tax.
The bill doesn't function as it was written. It now functions with a bit of editing by the Court.
Laws gain meaning as they are interpreted and applied, not written.
-
Really?
To repeal the biggest tax increase in american history, for one. two, why wait till november when they can use that tax increase to to get themselves re-elected
The point is that it's not going to pass the Senate or veto until November, and maybe not even then. So yeah, it's useless right now.
-
Except there are windows for enrollment. If you are hell bent on not being covered when you are sick, you will still **** yourself. What you suggest simply isn't true. We've covered this in the original ACA thread but of course conservative nutballs wouldn't pay attention to the actual text I presented.
Mind posting that here or providing a short synopsis?
-
It's not horrific to who? You? I have many family members and employees who beg to differ. But it's still cheaper than health insurance, and since you can wait until you're sick before you get insurance, you need only pay the taxes, then get sick, then get insurance, then get better, then drop insurance until you're sick again.
It's a win-win for anyone who, y'know, is a freaking moron.
This is a big problem and one of the things I hope gets work out either by Congress or by the insurance companies themselves.
-
My guess, for those who are uninsured and pay the tax, when they do get sick perhaps they will end up on the Medicaid rolls?
Which may or may not have the fund to support them because this program is being scaled back all over. My ultimate question is does the "tax" or "penalty" or whatever you want to call it ultimate go towards providing healthcare for someone or does it get simply lost in the government's money pile?
-
So we would be subject to 1390/ year in addtional tax penalty if we had no insurance. That is not horrific, but not insignificant either
Is there any provision within the law that streamlines that money directly into subsidies for hospitals who serve the un-insured or does it go into the general fund? Anyone know?
-
-
No surprises here...but you're wrong. Again.
And a quick forum search could have told you that.
Or, hell, reading through this thread could have told you that.
I always find it very amusing when the US Attorney is oblivious to the point where he can't make an argument that the justices are handing them on a silver platter.
To be fair, this forum or thread is not an accurate cross section. It represents those who care enough to debate on the issues in a sustained way. Demographically speaking, this is a fractionally small minority of the population.
-
House to vote to repeal on July 9th
Completely useless until November. More distractions.
-
Politically speaking this could be a bad thing for Obama. The majority of people are against this bs law. If it had been ruled unconstituitional or eviscerated then it would have been much less of a factor in the upcoming election. This ruling will fire up that majority and give them a reason to vote against Obama.
Time will tell. The reverse is that people will get tired of beating a dead horse now that the case has been decided.
And I'm not sure its a clear majority. Have any non-partisan polls to back this up?
IS ALEX CARRINGTON A BEAST?
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
I'll state them, but I'll be damned if I mark them.