billsfan89

I was not saying that was what should be done. I don't think a struggling middle class needs more taxes. I was more so saying that the evening out of the federal income tax distribution couldn't come from the poor since the poor have so little income. If you taxed the 45% that don't pay federal income tax at 100% it wouldn't be that much more than the whole worth of the Bush tax cut on the top income bracket. So this meme that some (not you in particular) float out that because 45% of American workers don't pay federal income tax that must mean that if we taxed them more there would be a lot more money coming into the system which just isn't true by the numbers.

First of all if you factor in payroll taxes the tax burden is much more evenly distributed considering that income above a certain income level (I believe 125k) isn't subjected to the tax. But if you just want to talk about income tax I think that evening out the burden can't come from the bottom 45% as if you tax them at 100% it wouldn't make much of a dent in the overall burden. You have to even out that distribution through taxing the middle class more.

As long as someone is not too insanely fargone I always enjoy seeing how others think. From what he has been replying I think he is reasonable enough (even if I vastly disagree) where there is actually something useful that could come from the conversation.

The reason 20% of the population pays 87% of the income tax burden is because they take in 52% of the total income. You could argue that the middle class could be taxed more but then there is the issue of making a tough economy even tougher for a shrinking middle class. The distribution of tax to income is thrown off a bell curve because of the middle class and not the working poor. There is a flawed idea that the 45% of people that don't pay federal income tax could "pay their fair share" and contribute more. I remember seeing a study done around the time Obama was considering repealing the Bush tax cut for the top bracket that said that if you taxed the bottom 45% of earners a 100% tax rate it would only be about 10 billion dollars more than the tax revenue that the top earners got from the Bush tax cuts top bracket rate cut. So I think if you are to take an honest look at evening out the distribution you have to look at middle-income people because the poor simply don't have a whole lot to contribute to the tax pool. As far as comparing the USA to Sweeden/Scandanivan nations, I think that there is a bit of a flawed and rather racist or at best racially biased talking point of it being a homogenous country. The USA has a very homogenous culture, we assimilate people so insanely well. I don't buy that as being any significant factor in why the USA can't adopt similar policies. Now I do think that the USA can not completely adopt the same level of social programs as those nations have is mainly due to the massive amount of military spending the US does as a percentage of GDP and the USA's military presence around the world lowering the burden on those nations for defense. I also think the USA's political system is completely owned and bought by special interests legally bribing pols. We can't get anything done that is at the expense of a large corporate entity because the influence will not get it. Not saying other nations do not have corruption but rather the level of corruption in the US is just at an insane level. Personally, I don't want to see the US adopt some of the more out there policies of the far left (The jobs guarantee being the biggest example) but we desperately need Universal Healthcare and some of the other more realistic policy prescriptions that come from the more populist left. We have been letting right wing nuts and corporate democrats !@#$ this nation over for too long. It just isn't sustainable.

The demand might not be static but everyone at some point with little exception will need access to healthcare. I think that most people would want at the very least a "catastrophic" health care package if they could afford it, no one wants to risk something like cancer and not being able to afford it and have it bankrupt themselves. I hear what you are saying about it being 60 years too late, the current healthcare system is deeply entrenched and very powerful. But I think that the dissatisfaction with the US system for the insane amount of money we put into it and the rather mediocre outcomes will only grow. There is only so much dissatisfaction you can tolerate.

But you aren't socializing demand. The demand for healthcare exists as inherent to human nature because everyone will need it to some degree. Socializing demand would be only allowing people to access X amount regardless of need (Equality of outcome.) In a single payer system you are allowing the healthcare providers the ability to assess access to care based off of need and not economics. Right now we let insurance bureaucrats decide the level of care that is needed, I would rather put those decisions in the hands of doctors. You are making the payment of it through taxes as opposed to private insurance. The question is what is the best method to pay for the care? The demand for care remains static no matter which system you are using, yes you would open up access to care by making the payment public. But once again I would argue that the costs and manpower saved by billing and the access to preventative care would far exceed the risk of rationing care (Which we already are rationing care along economic lines.) I don’t see any private model that reduces billing and addresses the need for preventative care. Then there is the economic issues of healthcare being a tremendous advantage for larger business (who can group their plans together for increased savings) and the issues of freelancers and the self-employed being underinsured or uninsured making people going into business for themselves much harder. My mom came from Iron Curtain Poland, she said everything in America was simply vastly better than Poland back then with the one exception being healthcare. She says that the healthcare system in Poland back then was actually better in how they treated people and she felt like American’s were so scared to see doctors because of costs. She always says that what good is great expensive medicine if no one knows how to access it. That should tell you that the privatized system is just inherently flawed.

What was it that the poor were doing in 1960 that was so different than they are doing now? I think the ills of the economy are caused by large corporations outsourcing (along with automation which is more a natural progression of technology) and the government being corrupted by the creeping influence of money and special interests. What is it that poor people are doing that is causing the jobs to be outsourced? I think the enablers of poverty are these large entities that take away a lot of the jobs and opportunities that formed the foundations of the middle class. Yes, everyone who works pays a payroll tax which funds Social Security and Medicare, the working poor also pay a sales tax on almost everything they buy as most states have some sort of sales taxes. Toss in fees and other state and local taxes like tolls, gas taxes and vice taxes and you will see that even that 40-45% that isn't paying federal income tax is paying a significant portion of their income towards taxes. Is what they get out greater than what they put in? In some cases, yes, but to say they are putting in 0 taxes and getting a lot out is inaccurate.

Once again, the working poor still pay Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Payroll taxes, Sales taxes, state and local taxes, fees on things like car registration and various other little taxes. I don't dispute the "federal taxes" portion, however, to present it as 45% of working Americans are just taking from the public and not putting anything back in is completely dishonest. It's a semantics argument but I think the way some people frame that statistic is highly misleading. I think we are in agreement on the Hand up and not hand out. I do think that there are some very basic needs like Healthcare and education that should be publicly funded, you can't get off your feet without those basic things. But I think that a lot of conservatives (Not you specifically) will place all the ills of the economy onto the poor when in reality it wasn't the poor who shipped jobs all over the world to undercut their labor. It isn't the poor causing the larger economic issues. The poor are the symptom, not the cause in most cases. The government isn't getting influenced and bought by lobbyists poor people are paying for.

That's a big misnomer. Healthcare is not an elastic product, it is not easy to create more of it and everyone has a demand for the best possible use of it. People always cite the government as being this massive bureaucracy and thus everything they do is inefficient. That's true in certain cases, esp for consumer products (Soviet phones and cars were !@#$ing horrendous) but when it comes to health insurance all quantifiable evidence proves your thesis wrong. Although I think that people will ignore the fact that any massive entity private or public is inefficient. People like to compare the federal government to a small business as a sign of inefficiency but compare a large corporate entity to the federal government and you will see very similar waste and politics. Anyway back to why I support Single Payer Healthcare. The USA's health insurance system spends 13% on billing. Most single payer systems spend less than 5% with the highest single payer system paying 7% on billing. The reason private insurance is inefficient is because healthcare providers in a private system have to deal with hundreds of insurance providers for each patient at the point of use. Each private insurer has their own coding, bureaucracy and payment methods. It's wasteful and inefficient by its nature. I am sure you have been to a hospital and doctors office and seen the massive billing department, that is unique to America. In a single payer system hospitals can get singular lump sum payments for the year (The administration can ask the government for X amount to cover their budget for a year.) Single payer systems also save money with preventative care. How many people do you know in the USA that don't see doctors for preventative care because they are uninsured or underinsured? People wait on things to get worse and then the treatments later on when a problem gets worse are more costly. The private insurance system is incentivized to not cover people for treatments because it saves them money so people don't like to navigate the system because it is so intentionally complicated. I also think that there is a tremendous economic benefit beyond the fact that the US would save trillions in healthcare costs. All businesses love a fixed cost. Replacing private insurance costs which can vary year to year with a simple payroll tax you fix that cost. It is also a great benefit to small businesses looking to compete and it also makes freelancing and self-employment much more realistic. Start ups looking to get talent already are at a disadvantage not being able to offer more pay but smaller companies and start ups have an even harder time competing for employees who might need the health coverage a larger company might be able to provide. Removing health care from work is a big boost. All single payer healthcare is, is paying for the services of healthcare providers with taxes as opposed to hundreds of private insurers with their own complicated rules and incentive to not cover people. Is single payer perfect? No there are issues but the question shouldn't be what system is perfect, the question should be what system is better. The outcomes and efficiency of a single payer system are far better than the ones of America's horrendous private system. The Walton Family has more wealth than 42% of American's combined, I think the decisions of the super rich have a much larger impact than the decisions of poor people. I am not saying that there aren't a lot of poor people that make bad decisions on their own accord that lead to their disposition in life. But I think that if I am looking at what the !@#$ is wrong with the economy I can't put the blame on the poor instead of the people that actually hold the economic power.

The talking point of "Half of America doesn't pay taxes" has been disproven so many times. The working poor pay social security, Medicare, Medicaid, Payroll taxes, State and Local income taxes, sales taxes, fees and various other taxes. So to portray anyone advocating for the outrageous notion that Universal Healthcare is a good idea is some freeloader who just wants a handout is not only dishonest but intellectually lazy. I think it is insane to look at the people with the least economic power (The poor) and think they are the ones responsible for everything wrong with the economy. On the surface level whose decisions are going to impact the economy more a billionaire or a poor person?

The term Democratic Socialist has kind of been co-opted and used to describe a social democrat or populist left candidate (for better or worse that is due to Bernie Sanders.) Which must be super frustrating for the actual Democratic socialists who actually believe in a form of post-capitalist society. I honestly think that if the Democrats went more populist left pushing for things like Universal Healthcare, Increased Infrastructure spending, ending rampant military spending, criminal justice reform, legalization of Marijuana, Green energy and job training you would actually see the Dems win more elections. But instead, the same special interests that kept the Tea Party people out will do there best to squash any outsider interference. The jobs guarantee is virtually impossible current economic conditions and would be economically disastrous. Other than that and maybe 1-2 other policy platforms I don't see anything radical about the populist left agenda. Universal Healthcare, in particular, is always pushed as this unreasonable radical thing when in reality the US healthcare system is the one that is actually radically inefficient and wasteful.

I think Groy takes it unless they kick Groy over to LG.

I think that there clearly wasn't any offers for Washington or else they would have taken even a 7th for him. That being said I think he more than likely makes the roster as the 4th DT. I don't see a 4th DT on the roster that will push Washington out of a job. Kyle, Star and Phillips are locks to make the roster, that leaves Washington with the 4th spot as his to lose.

Cooks is a better deep threat decoy than Watkins, I originally thought Watkins could be a more complete player than he is. But he seems to be a more of a DeSean Jackson type big-play threat than a complete all-around threat like Antonio Brown (Which was the type of player he was drafted be.) That's not to say a DeSean Jackson type isn't valuable in the NFL but Sammy was expected to be much more than that, Sammy is still young so he might develop more into that kind of player but 4 years in he just hasn't. Anyway I think that The Rams had too much invested in that "Deep Threat" receiver position to let Cooks walk after the season (EJ Gaines, pick 56, pick 23 and a 6th round pick for one year of Sammy, a pair of 6th round picks and Cooks.) That's a lot of draft capital and a solid defensive player invested for it to just result in 2 seasons of WR play. Cooks is young too so locking in a 25-year-old receiver to a long-term deal makes sense (esp since they need that pop the cap of the defense type player to make Gurley and Goff's abilities work better.

Shady is a modern day back, he catches pass and works great in space. Having that player on any type of offense is a positive.

Considering how bad the talent is on the offensive line and at receiver, I am not shocked a lot of pundits are predicting the Bills to be in the 5-6 win range. The defense should be good enough to scratch out a few wins but the QB situation is bad and there are a lot of other areas of concern on the offense.

If you want to say that the Bills thought Rosen had too significant a concussion issue for them to draft him then I think your argument could hold weight if the chatter about concussions is true. However, Rosen coming from an extremely wealthy family has nothing to do with anything regarding him as a football player. Josh Allen coming from a more modest background doesn't mean that he loves the game anymore or less. If Allen were to collect a massive 10 figure contract 8+ years into his career then he is set for life and just as likely to retire as any other QB.

I wouldn't mind Lacy because he is young and recently productive (5.1 YPC in 5 games in 2016 before getting hurt) and Lacy is still only 27/28 with some injury history but not a major one. I think there exist better options but Lacy has some sort of chance to be productive.

With Murray retired I have no idea why Alfred Morris is a free agent unless he is commanding a higher asking price. I much rather have Morris than Chris Ivory, Morris had a 4.8 ypc in 2017 as a backup for the Cowboys, granted the Cowboys O-line is pretty solid and may inflate production but 4.8 ypc is good no matter what. Morris is also 29 and will be 30 by the end of year so age isn't a big factor.

I thought he could have had one more productive season. His 2016 with the Titans was a strong season, he fell off a lot in 2017 and being banged up a bit didn't help. I thought maybe at age 30 with only 7 years and well under 2,000 carries he could be worth kicking the tires on.

I love the Vonta signing, seems like the perfect type of player to take a chance on, not too old, recently productive but banged up a bit in recent years so his price came down. Overall I think it is very high reward low risk. I still think it would have been good to also sign EJ Gaines, esp considering the price he signed for in Cleveland. I am not too confident in the nickel spot and Gaines played so well in the system, I much rather the Bills not signed Ivory (There were cheaper backs of similar quality available) and maybe cut some other fat on the roster to sign Gaines and Vonta. I think Gaines/Vonta/White could have made for an amazing CB combo with Hyde and Proyer on the back end crushing it. That secondary could be among the best in the league and with an average front 7 could form a top 10 or better defense. Also even if Gaines or Vonta were to get hurt or have a down year the other one could be solid and they could maybe find a young player to be the nickel. It just seemed odd that a front office that traded for Gaines let him go on such a modest deal.

I wouldn't mind kicking the tires, I thought he showed some flashes in San Diego back in 2014 but he got hurt and never got back on track. Only 27 certainly someone that can provide competition.

McD has only been here for 1 year, granted that was one hell of a year but the results are limited. Tons of coaches who had fantastic opening years but then went on to not have a good long-term tenure. Now I like most of the moves on paper this regime has made. But 2018 might be a rough 6-10 type year and 2019 this new regime might be on a shorter leash.

That's what makes football analytics so much harder than Baseball and even Basketball analytics. There are 11 players on the field vs. another 11 players, that's 22 moving parts some players with specialized roles and assignments that are hard to account for unless you are the coach that knows the assignment and role on that given play. Star might not grade out well because a lot of what he does is within the context of occupying players and holding the line of scrimmage. That could be a valuable utility that might not show up on how they grade metrics (If you aren't getting past the line of scrimmage that is a neutral to negative grade.) The success or failure of the Star signing is something that will be determined by how good or bad the run defense is.

Murray was pretty productive in 2016 and is only 30. Adrian Peterson's last productive season was in 2015 and he is 33. Murray despite being 30 has only been in the league 7 years and has nearly 1000 fewer carries. I think Murray stands a chance at having 1 more decent season left in the tank (Not a very good chance but a chance) while AP is just flat out cooked and a possible locker room issue.