billsfan89

My main argument is what are you going to do about student debt that is weighing down tens of millions of people economically due to a complete failure of the systems that were around them at a young age? Do you continue to have people being economically limited because of decisions made at a young age they weren't properly informed on? Do you allow them to default on debt but ***** up their credit thus limiting their economic prospects for a long time and still costing the tax payers a lot of money? Or do you do a universal bailout funded by a Wall Street Speculation tax that wouldn't impact most Americans and solves issues with trading? The status quo is not sustainable in my opinion and dragging down the economy. You have two issues when it comes to higher education. One is what to do with the past loan recipients and how do you avoid a bubble in the future? You can make many arguments about how to finance college and educate students properly about that decision. However I don't see a solution better than universal debt forgiveness in regards to how to deal with the issues of those currently saddled with loans. I didn't make any conflicting statements nor backtracking. I intended a statement to apply to one context and you are choosing to apply that universally and to its most extreme measure. Thus taking what I said out of its intended context.

The context of the conversation was about student loans not every single applicable scenario. So yes you can take someone's words verbatim and take those words out of context. When people take quotes out of context they don't make up words they apply verbatim phrases literally when they weren't intended to be have a universal or certain type of context or were phrases said in jest or with something else implied. I interpreted your argument as in a paraphrased manner "Well I knew how to act so therefore everyone in that scenario should have known what they were doing was irresponsible." Your standard for judging wither or not people's action were irresponsible in my interpritation came down to your own sense of judgement at that age. My comment was to illustrate that perhaps that isn't a great metric to judge wither or not debt forgiveness in this instance constituted a moral hazard.

There were many teams this year who have had abysmal injuries at QB that could have used Kaepernick as either a spot starter or a backup (The Jets.) The Bills are not one of those teams unless they suffer multiple injuries at the QB position.

As though there is no context?

If your teachers, guidance consolers and parents tell you college is the path to a better life then you think you are acting responsibly to get an education that is constantly being told to you as the path to a better life. I think you have a system that shouldn't be giving 5-6 figure loans with zero collateral to 18 and 17 year olds. You can't even default or go bankrupt on these loans. This is a failure of the system that was supposed to prepare kids for this decision on many levels not a bunch of irresponsible people doing something frivolous in most cases.

I say this as someone who paid off their debt (35k worth of debt myself 10k paid for by my parents) I think it would be nearly impossible to reimburse people who paid off past loans and there always has to be a cut off. No matter what type of loan forgiveness you do there are always going to be winners and losers. You have to consider the grander economic benefit and the future benefit of publicly funded state universities (your kids no longer have to worry about saving for college.) I also think you underestimate the pressure that was put on students to attend college from high schools. My guidance counselor told me that I basically only would be successful if I attended college (I graduated high school in 2007) and I was a fairly mid-level student. High Schools public and private were often graded on "college acceptance rate" they were funneling students to go to college because they were graded on it for funding and rankings. That's not to say that students don't have agency in their lives but rather that there were many factors that influenced kids to take on those loans that weren't the result of rampant irresponsibility but institutional failure at many levels. How far back do you go in reimbursing people for paying off their loans? Do you go 4 years back then the people 5 years back will complain? There is always going to be a borderline where people fall off. Once again there is the grander economic benefit of debt forgiveness. Also if you accompany debt forgiveness with publicly financed universities you have a benefit that future generations universally benefit from. As far as irresponsible people using that loan money on bad investments? Well in any universal solution you are going to have people that benefit from irresponsible behavior. But considering the circumstances a universal solution is the only one that makes sense. You have a program that you know would have widespread positive economic impacts and would largely benefit middle/working and upper middle class people many of whom were not acting irresponsibly then I don't see why a small minority of people would keep you from supporting such a program that would also benefit future "responsible" generations. As far as getting the money from endowments and the colleges themselves? I don't know if that is necessarily possible. I am not sure if you tax endowments and college funds 10% or more that it would produce the money needed in order to fund a program. Whereas a Wall Street Speculation tax with the first 25k exempt is a tax that solves the high frequency trading problem while funding the bailout money and future college education funding needed. 80% of Americans don't own stocks, of that 20% that do most don't make more than 25k worth of trades. A speculation tax would be a very small tax burden placed on an industry who constantly gets bailout, subsidized and favorable tax treatment and has a problem with high frequency trading that needs to be curbed. For one that's an extreme example that is very hyperbolic. The main argument is that the system that encouraged and granted loans was far more irresponsible than the young students who were often ill-informed and ill-prepared for the massive amount of capital loans they should have never had access to and can't default on. The students were not Irresponsible the system was.

They can't go bankrupt on those loans like any other loan. If a bank makes a risky loan they suffer the consequences of such risky activity. But we saddle students with loans that they can't default on. Loans they were encouraged to take by educators that they trusted in many cases. That is punishing them by having onerous conditions to massive amounts of money they shouldn't have had access to.

If a 17 year old went to a bank and asked for a 50k small business loan with no collateral and cosigner they would be rightfully rejected. Yet not only did three generations of students have access to 5 and 6 figures worth of loans they were encouraged by trusted educators to take out these loans, loans to which they could not go bankrupt on. This was as much if not more an institutional failure as it was an individual failure. If that isn't a system to which you can understand someone falling prey to then I think you are failing to step out from the idea that not everyone thinks like you and people shouldn't be punished for the rest of their lives because they weren't as responsible at age 18 as you were. At age 16, 17, and 18 people are susceptible to those types of circumstances and bad guidance without being wildly irresponsible. This isn't a moral hazard situation. Would some people be bailed out on stupid decisions? Yes but we can't base entire policies on the idea that if 10% of people benefit were stupid then ***** the rest. And that's forgetting the grander economic argument that if you actually were to do a consumer level bailout (unlike previous bailouts which bailed out the companies) you would see a massive positive economic gain far greater than the tax cut bill for relatively far cheaper. Student loans eat up hundreds to thousands of dollars of tens of millions of families and individuals monthly income. If you give a 25 year old 400 dollars extra a month they are probably going to circulate that at a consumer level. They are going to spend it on things they were putting off or into enjoying them selves at local business or buying consumer products. Most of that money actually stays in the economy unlike corporate tax cuts which go to dividends and buybacks that end up in a lot of international hands effectively transferring money out of the economy. That is an actual sustained stimulus on the economy. I would get being against a bailout of credit card debt for consumers because well you can't just bail people out of poor decisions. That's a true moral hazard. You also have the ability to go bankrupt on most other forms of debt, which while damaging to your credit is not something that can't be overcame. This is a unique situation where a consumer bailout is something that falls well into the line of reason both in terms of economic stimulus and moral necessity.

There are some circumstances in which you have to relocate resources via new taxes to fix issues. It isn't the solution to every issue but a lot of our issues stem from a lack of public investment into avenues that would help the middle and consumer class. I agree that high schools and the general education system needs to reorient how they prepare students for the decision to go to college. And although high schools the last 5 years are starting to shift how they prepare students (my nephew is going to a trade school because he was explained the benefits of taking on a trade vs taking on huge loans to go to college) there still needs to be more work done in that respect. So we are in full agreement that the education system as a whole needs major adjusting in how they prepare students for a post school life. As to why Wall Street Speculation taxes? Well for one that tax actually helps alleviate the high frequency trading that is ***** with the markets. Two it is something that has worked in other nations, it is actionable far better than a wealth tax. Finally it would raise enough money to both fund the bailout of students trapped in past debt and finance college publicly for the foreseeable future. Personally I think it just makes sense from a feasibility standpoint. A Wall Street Tax also has a limited impact on most Americans, you can have the first 30k worth of trades exempted But if you wanted to go after colleges in some way that makes sense to help pay for the solutions I am fine with it. I do think that public financing should come with steeper regulations to limit useless administrators and other frivolous spending so it shouldn't be a blank check either. However what do you do about the three generations of students from the 90s, 00s, and early part of this decade who were misinformed and miseducated about what their prospects for college were? No one would give a small business loan to an 18 year old with zero collateral and relevant experience. Yet we want to hold people responsible for access to bad credit they can't default on. The thing is this is hurting the economy. We have tens of millions of people whose consumer spending is heavily limited by hundreds to even 4 figures worth of monthly payments they are trapped in. If you free up these people's money that money more than likely is going to go back into the economy and increase demand (which has a massive widespread benefit.) So in addition to the moral argument of bad credit and bad advice at a young age shackling students with bad debt due to decisions made at age 17/18 there is the general economic argument.

Just win against the Fins and Broncos you get to 8-3. Then all you have to do is take 1 of 4 games and the Jets game. One week at a time, get to 7-3 against the Fins first.

Josh and the offense have improved at not making turnover worthy plays. I think the offense has made progress but they do lack a consistent identity.

It was a frustrating game but not the end of the world. The Bills need to win the next two games (a loss at Miami or home for Denver in my mind means the team does not make the playoffs most likely) or it is doom and gloom. But a super close away loss to a talented but under achieving Browns team doesn't mean the season is over and Josh is JP Losman 2.0. 1- The defense was looking like it was going to have an Eagles type game but that goal line stand was tremendous and revitalized them. They did end up giving up the final drive but if your defense gives up 19 points you still should be able to win. 2- The offense was frustrating, Josh made some good throws, made some bad throws, but his poor execution on critical plays cost them the game. 3- Bojo had his best game, one great punt and all his other punts were quality plays. Really impressed by him, hopefully he keeps that up, still nervous about him overall. 4- Haush is a huge concern, I get that a 50+ yarder isn't a gimme but his kicking from 50+ hasn't been there all season. I just really question if he is a good kicker anymore. He was so awesome in 2017 but in 2018 he was fairly average and not that great again in 2019. 5- The pass rush is still a concern, the Bills got two sacks from their linebackers but the front 4 was once again not consistent. Overall it was just a frustrating game that the Bills couldn't close out on defense or get it together on offense. but the Browns are not a bad team they will finish with 7-8 wins maybe even 9 wins. The Bills still have two very winnable games coming up. Keep Calm.

If Kevin Johnson is available I don't see why he shouldn't get a chance to play instead of Levi who is quickly becoming a liability. Lee Smith is a specialist who has done very little but I think the staff see value in that role. Gore seems to be phased out more after the Skins game where he sucked and Singletary broke out. I think Gore can still get a few carries a game in short yardage situations, he seems to have a lot of respect in the locker room and I Think his struggles are in part to do with the O-line. So I think that McD will on occasion make these types of moves along the roster to pull playing time. Hopefully they make that kind of move.

I get the idea of a moral hazard when it comes to bailouts. The mortgage bailouts weren't even a consumer oriented bailout they were bailouts for big business not the people that took the mortgages. I think the bank bailouts and the auto bailouts are the definition of socializing the losses and privatizing the gains. But when it comes to student loans I think a bailout would be both good economic policy (this would free up hundreds to thousands of dollars a month to millions of consumers, which would pump demand directly into the economy on a consumer level.) But it wouldn't be a moral hazard bailing out of lazy people who made bad decisions. The students who took on student loans were given access to 5-6 figures worth of loans with zero collateral and no means to declare bankruptcy or default at the age of 17 or 18. That isn't irresponsibility on the part of the student but the system. On top of that most of the students who took on student loans were encouraged to do so by their school system both public and private. When I went to high school everyone was basically told go to college or you are a loser. You were actively told you had to go to college (which was driven by the "college acceptance rate" metric being a highly desired ranking.) This isn't a failure on the consumer who the people issuing the loans knew weren't fully educated, mature, or able to put up the collateral needed and the schools that heavily pressured young students from the age of 14 on that this was their only option. I paid back my college loans, I have no problem levying a Wall Street transactional tax in order to finance a bailout of consumers hamstrung on loans that they should have never been able to take out.

The offense is going to have to score 21+ to win this game in my opinion. Getting 7 on this drive would be a great way to get momentum back. I know the defense held them again on the goal line but they also got taken all the way down on a long drive.

It changed the emotion of the game for the defense and Bojo bailed out their field position on the punt.

I thought Josh was deported to the XFL.

He covered up the ball better on that run.

My point is that had he caught it I am not sure he would have been inbounds.

That wasn't the best throw to Knox, had he caught it he might not have been able to get his feet in bounds. Josh has not looked good in the first two drives.

This game was always going to be a hard game, first off away games are always tricky. Toss in the fact that the Browns are a talented but underachieving team and you have a lot to deal with and a game that is far from a gimmie.

It was horrific on the first drive but it has clamped down since.

Wow good punt and some luck on the fumble losing more ground.

Could be but the offense needs to at least shift field position and give the defense a break. The offense needs to show up a bit for the defense a score here would be huge.

Gruden has the Raiders in a nice spot. Extra draft capital coming from the Bears, a good amount of cap space, you are already paying your QB so no need to plan for a future cap charge, and a coach/GM being allowed to build their vision. They might not make the playoffs but they are developing a young core of players along with vets with gas in the tank that could have them ready to be a serious player in 2020 in Vegas. They have 2 first round picks and 2 third round picks (although no 2nd rounder) to supplement a young core. While also having enough cap space to add some quality players. They could easily finish with 8-9 wins on the season and have an avenue to add to that roster. I didn't expect much from Gruden (I thought he would be out in 4-5 years with maybe one winning season) but he might be setting up the Raiders for sustained success for at least the next 2-3 seasons.