jjamie12
-
Posts
622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jjamie12
-
-
The problem is making some of these things happen would take cooperation from many lobbyists in DC, and frankly that's not likely. So we'll just continue going down this road, and blaming every President in office until something gives.
If you want lobbyists out, just vote every incumbent out, every time. People keep wanting to write new rules about money and lobbyists and donations and blaming this or that. The mechanism is already in place! We get the government we deserve. [/ thread hijack]
-
1. The owner.
2. The structure put in place by the owner.
3. The owner.
-
From where I sit, this remains an over-reaction by everyone involved.
-
Should you give him more than 10 rookie season games to determine consistency?
Respectfully, No. His accuracy has been an identified problem since his college days. Either you can throw to the spot, or you can't. I don't believe he will ever do it consistently. Sometimes, I'm not surprised when I'm wrong; I will be completely shocked if we ever view EJ as a 'franchise'-type guy.
At one point this past December, Colin Kaepernik completion percentage was 33rd in the league of 32 teams. He also admits to having to keep working on his accuracy. He's been pretty successful. I don't think "by now" you can tell anything defeinitive about a QB in the NFL. IMO, you are what you are by year 3. But it can happen later. Teams may or may not wait that long. St Louis going into year 5 and still developing Bradford. I think there is room for development in all aspects of a QB.
I get what you're saying, I just don't see it with EJ. He seems like a guy who really tries hard and will do the right things, I just don't think he'll ever be very good.
I mean, honestly, how many times does he have to throw the ball out of bounds on a sideline go route before we just say, eh, maybe he doesn't have it?
-
Very much off the EJ bandwagon.
EJ is just not very good at the thing that's most important in a QB -- Accuracy. He just doesn't have it, and I don't believe that you develop it in the league. You either have it or don't by now.
Someone earlier mentioned looking at the All-22 and seeing all the plays left out on the field. He just can't throw with any consistency and it's hard for me to understand how anyone can have faith in a QB that can't throw consistently.
-
prior to HCR, if he didn't take Aetna, what choice did he have? Maybe he could buy individual coverage through BC/BS, but if he had a prexisiting, forget about it.
I don't get where some stand on decoupling insurance from employment. When Nancy P suggested people no longer had to stay at a job because they could buy individual coverage, Conservatives freaked out that these people would now just live on the dole. But now its agreed that not being stuck at a job for just health insurance is a good thing? Am I missing something?
Yes. The biggest thing you're missing (theoretically), is that employers are getting a tax break by offering benefits. If the IRS would, instead, offer the tax break to people instead of employers, then employers would just pay people more (by the value of the benefits) and we would be free to shop for our own health insurance with the extra money that the employers pay us. In theory. I'm sure someone knows more than I do about it, but that is the general thought behind it.
-
How do I fire Aetna if it's the carrier that my employer offers? I can't. That's why one of the reforms I wanted to see was disconnecting health insurance from your employer.
Your employer forces you to take health benefits from them?
You may not like the alternative you can find elsewhere, but you CAN get rid of AETNA. Additionally, if AETNA is not providing your employer with the types of benefits that they expect then your employer can fire AETNA. They or you cannot get rid of the government.
I definitely agree with you about severing the link between jobs and health insurance.
-
There is always a Gatekeeper unless you pay self pay for every service, but you know that- the question is do you want to be dicked around by Aetna where a smaller portion of your healthcare dollar makes it to care delivery, or say your State of residence where a bigger portion of that dollar gets to care? Again, who care who holds the risk pool money in the end, someone is always deciding on your behalf what is best for you, at least from a payment perspective. You might even argue the Red States would be better at better managing Single Payor State-based risk pool that Blue States. Let States fund their own Medicaid, and collect for the general population risk pool- they can let voters decide whow big dedictibles are, and how much they are going to spend annualy on their health system. Really, it put the voters in charge- if they feel the State is spending too much, vote in a budget hacker- of they want to spend more on care, bump up the budget.
You can't fire the government. You can fire Aetna.
-
Who said anything about being oppressed?
What's the issue, again?
-
Not that I would cast a vote in favor of awarding damages, but it IS worth noting that kids jump off that bridge to kill themselves pretty regularly. I don't have a huge problem with a jury deciding whether or not Cornell / Ithaca have done enough to try and prevent it.
-
there's no reasonable person claiming that working at wal mart or fast food joints is education.
I know that you were talking about the difference between an internship and a 'regular' job with your post.
However. This type of thinking is just so very, very wrong.
What do you think the minimum wage should be? With specifics, please.
-
TPS: A couple of questions for you:
1- Why do you want the metric used to be taxes as a % of GDP? Someone posed the question (or maybe they just yelled at you and called you stupid
) As someone noted: It seems like that points to (implicitly) your continuing an expansion of government? Why should the rate of government spending necessarily equal the rate of growth? If you don't believe that, it's hard for me to understand why you would choose that metric over, say, Real Tax Collection (a number I just made up -- tax collections adjusted for inflation, or something like that)?2- As you've noted, sort of: When theory meets practice, counter-cyclical spending turns directly into more and more and more spending always. Not counter-cyclical, but counter-cyclical followed by cyclical, follwed be counter-cyclical. In other words: In practice, your 'solution' to these problems leads to an even bigger problem at some point in the future (the end game of this appears to be getting closer and closer).
From an ethical perspective: Are you OK with that?
From a political perspective: Aren't you worried about ever-increasing concentrations of government growth and control over the economy? At some point, we're going to cross a line that you will view as 'bad'. What is that line? Isn't it better to just not go down the path at all? Afterall, isn't crossing that line WAY too miserable to even take the chance that we cross it and don't realize it?
-
were you not describing trickle down economics or high tide lifting all ships? do the graphs showing decreasing income for all but the top percentiles not refute that thesis?
No, birdog, it doesn't. No one in their right mind would describe the last 6-7 years as a rising tide, so income gains since 2007 will of course be down in real terms. No one is arguing that point. The rising tide has occurred over the last 50 to 100 years. The 99%'ers living standards are better than they were 50-70-80-100 years ago, even with this down-draft over the past 6-7 years.
The other charts show displays of disparate income/wealth gains. Again, there is no one here arguing that the 1% is not better off than the 99%. Nor is anyone arguing that the 1% has taken more share of any income/wealth gains made in the past few years or even in the last 50 years. The point that you keep missing is that even though that has happened, would you rather have the living standards of 1968 or of 2013? People keep telling you that, yes, the 1% is better off, but so what? So is the 99%! So yes, quite literally, a rising tide does lift all boats (including the 99%), just as a tide flowing out (think of the last 6 years) will lower all boats, disproportionally affecting the 99%. Which is why most here argue for policy decisions that will increase economic activity -- lifting the 99% ers -- while most of the policy actions you will recommend will actually decrease economic activity, by definition. Most people here are very concerned with the 99% (and the 50% and the 20% and the 10%), our view, though, is that actions that you promote would, while artificially narrowing the gap between the 99 and 1% actually HURT the very people you're trying to help the most.
Consider: Would you rather have a job, or more food stamps?
-
sinking ships and downhill course graphically described: http://wallstcheatsh...html/?a=viewall. just a few other examples: record numbers of homeless students http://www.scholasti....jsp?id=3756883, record and staggering student debt, record number of people on food stamps.
None of which have anything to do with the discussion I was attempting to have with you. But OK.
-
i'm serious. many have more but many more are 1 financial catastrpohe away from the title car loan usury store or the street. and the number in that precarious position increases every day. we reached the economic apex some time ago ( and it lasted only a couple of generations or so) and i fear the big drop will be sudden.
I'm a little confused. You first argued against the idea that a rising tide lifts all boats. To address that, I pointed out that 'the 99%' is WAY better off today than they were 100 years ago. You know, sort of as a proof of the concept that a rising tide does, in fact, lift all boats.
I agree that there are people who are 'close to the edge'. There will ALWAYS be people close to the edge. The idea is that the edge, today, is not only significantly higher in terms of living standards, but less steep and not nearly as deep. You ascribe almost no value to that and I think it's wrong to do so.
-
i disparage the quest for the magic bullet or pot of gold. but mostly i blame a culture that fosters and skillfully cultivates that quest and not those that have been successfully indoctrinated.
ah yes. i rising tide lifts all ships. except it doesn't in most economies. it lifts the well maintained yachts. the leaking dingys sink.
You're serious?
What do you think of living standards of 'the 99%' over the past 100 years? Any improvement? Or has it all been downhill?
-
I read somewhere (and I don't have time to go research this) that taxing 'the 1%' at a 100% tax rate would be enough to run the government for 2 weeks. Does anyone here dispute that?
-
Actually he's betting against his future earnings, if you look at a hedge from that standpoint. I read about this a couple weeks ago -- pretty interesting concept. Players get to lock in some cash and fans get to 'buy' their favorite players.
I wonder how much Buffalo Barbarian would have lost buying shares of Tim Tebow and other over-hyped college QBs.
The concept is really cool. This particular investment is terrible. A buddy of mine tried to do something very similar about 5 years ago in with minor league baseball players, but MLB wouldn't go for it at all. It's too bad, because I would imagine that this would work way better with leagues that have significant 'minor leagues' associated with them. It would be way more fun to buy shares in some minor league baseball player and watch him move through the minors and be able to actively trade on what his future earnings might be based on how well he's doing.
-
the double negative has confused me. you're saying that the profit motivation is enough to warrant the sub living wage or you're not? either way, increasing the minimum wage may well increase the cost of goods (especially cheap goods like pink slime burgers). but those costs will be spread over the populace (perhaps even more concentrated on lower wage earners) so it amounts to a flat tax. and if less is spent on welfare because of this. taxes in general can decrease or require less of an increase. isn't that exactly what the repubs want? why the obstructionism?
No. What I'm saying is that 'Repubs' are NOT arguing that we should keep min. wage where it is so that companies can make more money. They're concerned that this would actually lead to less people being employed. Hurting the very people you're trying to help.
they can decide any pay they like all the way up to 20x the average worker salary- I will also allow the stockholders to voluntarily tip them, am I not merciful
The world
In what way?
-
You're right we have to limit CEO pay to the historic 20x the average workers pay.
Who would this benefit?
-
this is corporate welfare, plain and simple. i started an entire thread on this: a living, minimum wage versus welfare. the actual numbers make it all the more compelling. increasing the minimum wage will lower govt subsidies and costs and increase tax revenues. the first part is what yall cons are always squaking about, non? what's uniquely wrong with cutting gov't spending via this mechanism?
The part that you never seem to understand is that the 'wacko cons' on this board have NEVER argued that the reason NOT to increase the minimum wage is so that companies will show a better profit margin. Until you try to fully understand why folks who are against a minimum wage increase are saying what they're saying, you and anyone having a discussion with you will continue to feel like you're each pounding your head against the wall.
-
Yes, for reposnsible people looking to manage risk and do the right thing, it fits the bill. Now for those who still want to free load, at least we get a piece of their hide in the penetly tax so when some of them get sicks, and actuarialy speaking they will, we have money to fund it... that's ok with me to be honest...
In my family, it was not a choice to carry health coverage, it was a non-negotiable... and to me carrying coverage to pay for my unforseen cat medical expenses is part of being a good, responsible citizen.... I am sad to hear others don't feel that way.
Unfortunately, your explanation of how the law actually works is not in any way the same as or even close to the same as how the bill was sold. How far do you think the President and Congress would have gotten with -- "Hey, we're going to spend $800 billion (and counting) and, well, yeah, we still expect 30 million people to be uninsured. But, still."
-
This chic needs to be quiet! If Republicans want to play in traffic, let's let them! OMG, What I would give if there was a nationwide Conservative hunger strike!!
Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz2fLbPgcRn
No, it is going to provide health care for millions of people, though. Where is the link from CBO saying it will have zero impact?
Zero impact is my commentary. 30 million remaining uninsured is a pretty non-controversial number, though. I'll look for a link.
-
B, it hasn't even been implemented yet... how can it have already failed? Thats nonsense
It has already failed by the very standards that its champion(s) set for it. The BIGGEST reason that we "needed!" this law was that it was completely unacceptable in a country with as much wealth as the US that 30 million people in the United States were uninsured. Fast forward to today and the CBO predicts that (wait for it) 30 million people will still be uninsured in the United States. We spent a 800 billion (and counting) dollars to make zero impact on the number of uninsured. I don't know what your definition of failure is, and I get that you like parts of the law, but to most people who were paying attention from the beginning? Yeah. It has failed. It's not delivering on, really, any of the promises that were made in order to pass this thing. Especially the biggest one.
Wealth Inequality Hurting Economy (duh)
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted · Edited by jjamie12
Please think through this for just a minute.
Why do lobbyists matter?
What are the implications for lobbyists if no one gets re-elected?
The mechanism to 'clean up' government is right there in front of all of us, but we're too busy treating political parties like our high schol sports teams.
We deserve the government we get.