billsfan89

My argument is that the wall is massively expensive (and comes with other costs) and its not effective without the manpower behind it. The manpower's funding can change thus the wall's permanence is fairly meaningless if it offers little more than a minor inconvenience for those looking to cross the border. Its nothing more than an expensive symbol.

As many have stated a walls effectiveness is only as good as the maintenance and manpower behind it. So why put up a 20 billion dollar structure whose impact is limited to how well you patrol it? So this idea that you put the wall up and that solves the issue for all time is just not true. If your manpower behind the wall and the funding to maintain the wall gets lower than it becomes very ineffective and just stands as more of a symbol and a minor inconvenience over come by ropes, carpets, and ladders. Not to mention the other secondary costs of a wall such as having to take land from citizens of the US, the logistical and legal implications of such a large use of imminent domain, the environmental costs, and the loss of access to the Rio Grande river. You could literally take the 20 billion in funding a full scale border wall would create and pay for 10 years worth of 10,000 additional border patrol agents, new technology, and even limited fencing. But instead you want a wall that will still require all those things and come at a much steeper cost?

Donald Trump asked that same question only to two seconds later claim that the technology behind ropes would foil a 30 foot drop. You could also toss a ladder on the other side and have someone climb down with a rope then place the ladder on the other side to make things easier for people who might not be able to use a rope. I don't doubt a wall would provide some impediment but is it honestly cost effective compared to other ways of border security? To build a wall that covers all of the border is going to cost more than 5.7 billion dollars. I am not opposed to limited fencing for more remote areas but a massive border wall would cost 20 plus billion dollars and still need billions of dollars of man power and technology behind it. I would rather put that 20 billion into hiring 10,000 border patrol agents for 10 years. implementing technology to secure the border, and do limited fencing in higher risk areas if that's something border experts would think is necessary. A wall across all of the border seems like a symbolic gesture devoid of any real impact.

I think his completion percentage can't just be explained away by outside factors. Although they could be a factor it is what is over the course of multiple College and his first NFL season. Allen does have issues missing some throws and he does need to improve his decision making to take easier throws when available. Allen's cannon arm is a blessing but it means that he thinks he can make almost any throw. That leads to bad decisions or more risky less high percentage decisions. I think his footwork issues certainly prevent him from making some of the easier high percentage throws that he sometimes misses. That being said, can him improve on his deficiencies that lead to his accuracy/completion percentage issues? That's a big maybe. Yes he certainly can improve his decision making, Allen is a bright hard working kid. With good coaching and more experience he can certainly improve on that aspect of his game and making more sound decisions will improve his completion percentage, lower his turnovers, and improve his overall quality of play. Now can he improve his footwork enough to keep him from missing some easy throws? Well that's a much harder thing to do. From my understanding footwork is something that can be improved but its much more difficult to dramatically improve your footwork as a QB. Again Allen is a smart hardworking kid, he certainly is going to put in the work to improve and has the intellect to improve but to what degree can he do it? We all know Allen has the arm strength, the release, the size, hand size, speed, and intangibles of a high caliber NFL QB, but can he make the improvements needed in those two critical areas of the game?

I wouldn't mind bringing him in on a one year deal. I think he could be a mauler at RT. But I would still draft a RT in the mid rounds behind him for depth and to take over in 2020. Glenn did miss 3 games last year but it was his most healthy season in awhile. Overall I would rather not take on an injury prone player but the tackle market is thin and if Glenn can be had on an affordable one year deal then I wouldn't have an issue with it.

It would cost more than a 4th round pick to move up 3 spots in the first round. I suspect it would take a 3rd rounder swapped for a 7th at the very least.

Allen and Darnold still have a long ways to go in terms of what their final product is. Darnold to me (Thus far as a rookie) looks like a less dynamic mobility Jamis Winston, lots of big throws but lots of sloppy play and mistakes. He can throw for 400 yards and 3 TD or throw for 4 INT's in any given game. Allen on the other hand looks more like Cam Newton but less dynamic in the passing game. Both players have a long way to go, I honestly wouldn't mind having either player to try and build a team around the next 2 years. Both could be top 5 QB's in the league both could be busts. I honestly do have a slight favor towards Allen because I think Allen has the tools to be much more dynamic.

I wouldn't hate it, you could sign McCoy and still have plenty of money to spend on offense while drafting an edge rusher or another player at pick 9.

Haha, I guess its hard to find a move that makes sense for everyone. Unless the cap number is insane I think there isn't much not to like.

Is there any info on terms? I love that the team wasted no time in bringing Lorax back. Not only does Lorax bring a lot of the intangibles and leadership but he was also a pretty good pass rusher that brings a lot of versatility as he can be a decent LB and line up along the edge or inside on passing downs.

I like the consistent "good enough" is not good enough mentality he has. That's the mark of a good player. Dawkins didn't have a bad year at all but he didn't get better. So I like the fact that he think and knows he needs to take a step up in year three.

People seeking Asylum walk into various ports of entry. They don''t sneak across them. By the very nature of asylum you are supposed to declare yourself to the border agents. So a wall doesn't solve that issue. I also disagree that a wall has a level of effectiveness if the manpower behind it is cut. I don't doubt that a wall might have some level of effectiveness but is that level of effectiveness enough? To put up a massive concrete and steel wall on the southern border is probably going to cost 20 billion or more. The miles and miles of steel and concrete alone blow past the 5 billion mark. If you estimate the cost of one border patrol agent to be roughly 100k per year (Salary, benifits, office space, training, equipment and other costs) you could hire 10,000 additional border patrol agents for 10 years at half the cost a wall would cost. You could take the other half and invest in other technology needs. I am not dogmatic about the issue, I can see the need for limited fencing in more remote areas (although I would have to see what evidence for effectiveness there is) but to construct this wall to only be a very expensive mild security measure seems like an expensive government boondoggle that won't come close to accomplishing its goals.

I understand that but half a mile away from a wall on the Mexico side people can leave ladders, carpets, and ropes to use to smuggle people over a wall. A wall to me would cost way more than 5 billion esp if they wanted a steel and concrete barrier (I think the original 20 billion is probably more in the ball park) and it wouldn't be as effective as people seem to think. I am not dogmatic about a wall either. If there are areas that need fencing for some tactical perspective I wouldn't be opposed to it, but a wall that covers a vast amount of the border just doesn't seem effective nor worth the massive costs, when other cheaper more effective options are available.

Ports of entry do not have a wall. People who come in caravans to try and gain refugee status go through legal ports of entry such as border crossings. So the idea that it could prevent migrant caravans is also just not based in reality.

But if the permanence is ineffective (and comes at the costs of the environment and at the cost of citizens losing their land among other costs) what good does the permanence offer? People can dig under a wall, ladders and ropes can be left on the Mexico side (which America can do very little about,) and the wall in certain areas can be damaged. I just don't see what impact a wall could have other than symbolism. From a tatics stand point I don't see what value it actually serves. I would also disagree that it even offers permanence. You have to maintain a wall in case it gets damaged or weathered. So if the funding goes down the wall becomes less impactful too.

Wouldn't a ladder and a rope make any wall ineffective? Even Trump said so himself that rope and ladder technology would fool even a 40 foot wall. I am all for border security. Its completely necessary for a country to maintain borders and there is a vested national security interest but why do people think a wall which could be circumvented in so many different ways be the answer? Why not spend money on more border patrol agents and other surveillance technologies such as drones and advanced motion detection? I think the idea that a wall is the only effective way to secure the border is just not based in reality.

That's two different arguments. The person had said that a national sales tax would be able to produce at or near the current levels of funding needed to continue the current size of the government. I think any illustration of the math would state otherwise.

Unless I am mistaken, I thought you said i(n response to another poster) that a national sales tax would be able to fully fund our current levels of government. I don't think it would since while the current tax code has all sorts of exemptions for rich people to take advantage of it still taxes them on some of their income (Even Mitt Romney paid about 12.5% of his capital gains income.) So my argument is that a national sales tax would not be able to replace the revenue lost from payroll taxes, corporate taxes, and personal income taxes. You said that it would be to another poster and my claim was that it simply wouldn't as the numbers don't add up.

Mahomes would not be Mahomes without his supporting cast, maybe he would still be a dam fine QB but his insane levels of production were made possible by both his abilities, supporting cast, and coaching staff.

The more I look at it there isn't an offensive linemen on the board that wouldn't be a reach. I would rather take a pass rusher and address O-line in round 2. WR might have to be an overspend in free agency but unless a trade down presents its self I think it is more than likely the team won't get good value on offense at pick number 9.

TNA had two problems, they didn't have the management in place and their vision was grander than it should have been. TNA should have been happy being a viable number two promotion in North America at least for a period of time. You need to have good management in place in order to scale up. If you try to scale up with bad management you end up losing a lot of money. TNA had a profitable run from 2007-2008 where they were a nice alternative product at a time when WWE wasn't doing much. Yet After failing to take a big step up in 2009 they went and spent tons of money on a product that wasn't ready. AEW should strive to be a solid number 2 wrestling promotion for 3-5 years. Find a decent TV deal within 1 year (man would I love to see TNT or even another Turner network like Tru TV give them a solid deal) and then just spend a few years building a new and interesting product/brand. I hope AEW puts in place good management and understands that for them it is going to take a long drawn out process to make them a viable brand. They have some good talent secured but its not always about the talent (TNA at one point in my opinion had a better roster than WWE.) AEW hopefully will learn to walk before it can run and soon once Impact folds, ROH relegates its self back to being a hybrid indy, that will leave AEW as the primary wrestling company alternative. To be fair that was the idea with the Invasion angle. They wanted to turn Smackdown in WCW Nitro but UPN wouldn't let them unless they cut the show to an hour (Thus cutting their revenue in half.) It was UPN's reluctance to have WCW branded programming that made them change course. That being said I am not sure how well they could have pulled it off, no matter what people would still know it was the same company.

I have been an on and off again wrestling fan since my childhood, right now I just check out the big shows from WWE but man does wrestling need something new to happen. It seems like the last big stars they created were John Cena, Batista, and Brock Lesnar. Even those three lacked the true crossover power of a Stone Cold Steve Austin and The Rock (And to a lesser extent Goldberg.) I hope that Khan a deep pocketed billionaire who much like Ted Turner has a passion for the industry is able to both put the money into the company and get the right people in charge. TNA for a window of time was throwing out the money but they didn't have the right management. ROH had some decent people in place with some solid talent but their owners never had the money. It just seems like AEW could be just what is needed to actually push wrestling in a new direction.

I understand how sales tax works, its not a hard concept. I am arguing that there is no way in hell a national sales tax would raise anything near what our current progressive tax system currently raises. If someone makes a million dollars a year, under the current system even if you want to be generous with deductions they probably still pay 200-250k in taxes not including payroll taxes. Under a national sales tax that person making 1,000,000 a year would have to spend all 1,000,000 on taxable reported goods to contribute 250k in taxes. They would have to spend 800k on taxable reported goods to pay 200k in taxes. Almost any high earner gets a really good tax break via a national sales tax. Are you arguing that a national sales tax would rake in enough money to replace the current income tax, capital gains taxes, payroll taxes, and smaller assorted taxes that currently take in 3.4 trillion dollars? My argument is it wouldn't. Now your argument could be that you would rather just do the sales tax and make due with the money it produces but that would then require deep deep cuts to all aspects of government.

You have to talk in larger numbers when talking about full scale economic policy as opposed to stating that because one person or a set of people cheat taxes means another system would work better when the numbers simply don't add up. Also the solution to our tax laws are not well enforced because of corruption shouldn't be to completely eliminate the IRS and switch to a tax system that will result in less revenue. Maybe we should go after the corrupting money influence in politics and make sure that we best enforce the tax laws we have so that we have more money for things like infrastructure and science? The current progressive tax system raises about 3.4 trillion in federal dollars. That's the amount you would have to hope a national sales tax would raise minus the 150 billion you give people via a yearly rebate to cover their first 20k. I don't see the numbers working. I am willing to be proven wrong if you have evidence to back it up but right now it just doesn't seem convincing that a rebate backed sales tax would fund the government at current levels. I am a numbers guy, I try my best to be objective, if you have projections and estimates that say otherwise I would hear it out. I also am genuinely asking how would a sales tax eliminate the IRS? Don't you still need to enforce people paying the sales tax?

People work under the books in a income tax economy too. In any tax system you will find people skirting the system. The point should be hard numbers that rich people would get a big fat windfall of money only paying about 25% on less than 50% of what they spend (Assuming they don't try and skim on certain purchases) as opposed to being taxed on all the reported income they make. Overall it becomes a rather easy issue to illustrate that flat or fair tax is basically wanting poor people and middle class people to pay more or the same in taxes but have programs that invest in them and the nation overall (social safety net and other public programs) in order to give a huge windfall to the wealthy who already are doing insanely well. When Warren Buffett states that we coddle the rich in this country you know the problem with the economy isn't that the rich don't have enough money.