Rob's House

The military is a welfare cycle/jobs complex?

I just meant because we're awesome, but your way works too.

Anyone think Favre could be coaxed out of retirement?

Now you've changed the conversation from one about people leaching off the government tit (and your absurd assertion that government employees are indistinguishable from welfare recipients) to one of what form of government spending has greater stimulative effect, which is not remotely similar to the topic you started. I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole because you know my theory on stimulus. The only real issue to be concerned with regarding military spending is what is the optimal level of military to meet its objectives and what is the optimal pay and benefits to those hired to work in the military. Whatever money you want to throw into the favorite liberal pet projects and whatever broad economic effect it may have is another issue altogether.

While I agree with this policy, it seems appropriate that posters such as Dev and myself be granted great latitude with the rules. And come on, man. Yall already took away his hypnotoad; hasn't he been through enough. Save your sanctions for JTSP... and Same Old Bills. Definitely Same Old Bills.

I'm not sure how much of Fitz's salary we can keep off the cap. I've heard $450k and $4 mil depending on when they cut him and who you ask, but I haven't been able to confirm that from a reliable source. Therefore, even if we paid whoever replaces him significantly less, it might ultimately might account for more against the cap than if we just kept Fitz.

It's highly probative of the theory that the problem is something other than gun ownership since gun ownership seems not to lead to these problems outside of these socially unstable environments. The pen is mightier than the sword

You're still conflating concepts in an intellectually untenable way. The military is an institution we as a nation have created to provide a service. We can disagree as to the proper scope of that service, but drawing the conclusion that because both the military and welfare recipients take money from the federal coffers makes them "takers" in the context that it's being presented is just silly (and I'm trying to be nice here our of respect). Additionally, when people talk about "takers" it's not just about welfare recipients. It speaks more broadly to a large and growing number of people who see the government as an entity that exists to give them things rather than maintain law, order, and national defense. It's funny to me how you guys fight to maintain the welfare state while constantly attacking one of the most fundamental purposes for having a federal government in the first place.

If Fitz is sent packing Campbell would be a reasonable veteran QB to bring in. But seeing as how dumping Fitz to bring in Campbell wouldn't save us on the cap (as far as I know) I don't see the point. Sure Campbell does some things better than Fitz, but Fitz does some things better than Campbell. It seems like a lateral move purely for the sake of making a move. Supposing we dump Fitz I actually wouldn't mind taking a look at Colt McCoy assuming the Browns drop him.. I know Cle replaced him w/ Weedon, but Cle hasn't proven to me they know how to run a franchise and it's hard to hold McCoy's stats against him seeing as how the Brown's offense has been completely devoid of anything remotely resembling a weapon prior to drafting Richardson. All of this in addition to drafting a QB prospect, of course.

I understand the desire to move on from Fitz, but isn't the point to replace him with a better QB rather than just a guy not named Fitz?

What about this do you take issue with, exactly? No, it's not.

You're wrong about conservatives costing Maher his job. It was primarily liberals who called for his head. In fact, conservatives were the people who came to his defense: Hannity, O'Reilly, Rush, etc. all came out to defend him, not because they agreed with what he said, but because they didn't approve of firing people for making unpopular statements. As far as this business of the conservatives moving to the right after 9/11, I'd like to hear an explanation for this. Normally when someone says the conservatives have moved to the far right I assume I'm just listening to a brain dead (*^*&%^$^#ass hole whose depth of thought goes no further than a recognition that he's a Democrat and should therefore mindlessly mimic the idiocy spewed by fellow Democrats, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're referring specifically to the nation building effort in Iraq as the "far right" movement. And if the only distinction I saw from Maher was his anti-war stance, which I never really held against him because he was one of the more logical opponents of the effort and I was never really sold on it from the outset anyway. I limit this "move to the right" analysis to Iraq b/c lefties were fully on board with Afghanistan, so much so that yalls hero-in-chief has said recently that "Afghanistan was the right war." Where I have a problem with Maher is he's gone from more of a libertarian to a full-fledge liberal who, contrary to his recent statement, has bought into all the absurd fiscal liberalism that is crushing our economy. And no, that is not how he portrayed himself when doing Politically Incorrect. Also, if I'm wrong about this move to the far right being specifically about Iraq, can you share with me the positional changes that have taken place in conservative circles over the last 10+ years, because I can't figure what they are, and despite repeated requests for clarification none of the enlightened left have been able to tell me.

Dude, forgive me if you're trolling again, but it seems you're serious. I can appreciate the idea of trying to make dissimilar things seem similar for the sake of making a false equivalence, but you're really pushing it here. We can debate the merits of various government jobs, but trying to eliminate the distinction between government employees and those on the government dole is beyond the pale. And if you're trying to make the argument that at the fringes there are some government jobs created for the sole purpose of rewarding political allies, I agree that happens, and that it is a problem, but it has nothing to do with the discussion. Your point, if I understand it correctly, is that government employees are paid by the government and that somehow makes them indistinguishable from people who are paid by the government who are not government employees. I'm not trying to be cruel here, but that's a really stupid point. If I'm misinterpreting you please correct me.

Maher's not all bad. I used to be a huge fan, back when he was more of a libertarian; back before he got his HBO show and started shamelessly pandering to the far left. And Maher was great in the movie. That was probably the best T & A cable B-movie of its time. Most of what he's saying here is basic common sense. The only reason I can figure the left pushes so hard against the idea is partisan identification and unconditional support for the party-line and reflexive opposition to anything that runs counter to that.

With the medicare part you can make that argument. I somewhat agree except there's a fundamental difference between a policy that gives entities X, Y, and Z something for being them as opposed to a policy that forces people against their will into a program where they're promised X for paying Y and then giving them Y despite it not being in the government's financial intersts. With the military part your analogy still doesn't work because the benefits, whether disproportionate to what you or I may find reasonable, is part of the benefits that is part of their military compensation. That would be like saying anyone who has insurance as part of their employment compensation, and has an insurance claim that exceeds the cost of their premiums, is a "taker" - an assertion that would really only assert a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of insurance. If you've done Mike Lofgren's theory justice, I can only say that Mike Lofgren is an idiot.

I'm reminded of a couple years ago when many here were adamant that the FO should cough up $10 mil/yr for Tyson Clabo, a guy who is only marginally better, if at all, than what we have now at a fraction of that cost, and who ultimately signed for $5 mil/yr. Supposing we'd wasted that money on Clabo we'd have $5 mil less to spend this off season. Anyone still wish we'd made that deal? To clarify, I'm not saying Levitre's expendable, just saying we should keep some perspective in our expectations of what the FO should be willing to pay to retain him.

The biggest difference here is he got substantially less than half the guaranteed money Revis is asking for, which makes it much easier to cut bait if necessary. Also, Revis, especially coming off injury, isn't now considered a better (if even as good) a prospect as Nnamdi was when he signed that deal, yet he's asking not only for 240% more guaranteed money, but substantially more money annually as well. I would consider the 3 mil/yr disparity (assuming 12 mil then = 13 mil now) a very substantial increase. I could be wrong. There could be a desperate GM who's willing to pay that, but I wouldn't want to be the guy who signs off on that contract.

Thank you for illustrating the incremental step towards full blown socialism. I know you guys, in your infinitely obtuse arrogance like to scoff and chortle at the idea that your bloated government entitlement schemes could ever amount to anything more than reasonable and measured attempts to help the helpless, but medicare as much as anything shows how your plans end up. Medicare was supposed to be a safety net for elderly people who couldn't afford treatment. Now it has become the default health care plan for elderly, and has swallowed that industry such that everyone except the very rich has to use medicare. I know in the wilfully unimaginative mind of a common lib, a mind that is incapable of understanding that the system would have evolved differently had medicare never been created as it was, that without medicare everyone currently receiving medicare would be left out in the cold, but that's not the reality. The system would have evolved differently and it's hard to envision a system that would have been less efficient. Plus, medicare is included in FICA taxes, so unlike the overwhelming majority of government entitlement programs, at least those on medicare can argue that they paid into a system. Sure it may be a ponzi scheme, but they weren't given the choice of whether to pick that system or another. So your analogy here fails miserably. And the military are employees being paid for a job. It's hardly similar. Actually it's not at all similar. It couldn't be more dissimilar. You're really grasping at straws here.

I had reservations about Anderson because on one hand he's had two very productive seasons, on the other he's had several not so productive seasons in between, and his 10 sacks with the Pats* could be attributed to scheming moreso than his ability to win 1-on-1 match ups. That said, I don't see any reason to cut him this year. Unless I'm wrong it wouldn't save much cap space this year, and if we're running a D similar to what the Jets have been running we're likely to get a lot more production out of a situational pass rusher like him. If he doesn't work out we can cut him during the season or next season when the cap #s fall more into our favor. As far as Levitre goes, the money sunk into Anderson shouldn't have much impact. The decision should really come down to how objectively valuable he is. His skill and production levels are good, but certainly not elite. The fact that he's stayed on the field makes him more valuable, b/c an elite player is only elite when he's on the field, but overpaying for a position is rarely good policy. It's all fine and good now, but the salary cap is real, and while it may not seem that big of a concern now, what about a few years down the road. When we look at each player in a vaccuum and say "hey what's another $1-2 million/yr" it seems reasonable, but when you take that stance with every player you want to keep or bring off the street it adds up and pretty soon your talent level is inferior to the payroll and you're stuck. Part of the secret to the Pats* ability to stay competetive every year w/o salary cap issues is they don't pay $10 mil/yr for a guy who's only 10% better than a guy making $4 mil/yr. They'll pay Brady $18 mil/yr, b/c he actually brings that value, but they'll let a Mark Anderson walk and plug in the next guy.

I changed my vote to Barkley (although after watching some more Geno Smith video I'd be just as happy with him). His performance at the Senior Bowl doesn't scare me a bit. FWIW, Sr Bowl performance wouldn't count for more than a 5-10% swing in my opinion of a guy.

Sounds like Revis is either trying to set the starting point of negotiations high or is suffering from severe delusions of grandeur. I can't see any team paying that kind of money for a corner, even if he is the premier corner in the league - and that's before you even consider the picks it would cost to get him this year. Mario is overpaid, but he was overpaid because of the rare circumstance of being a young premier DE on the market when a team w/ plenty of cap space that couldn't have been more desperate for a DE was willing to overpay to have a difference maker to anchor the line. DE is usually the most important position on the defense. And while corners are important, they're not $16 mil/yr important. I could maybe see a team that thinks they're a corner away from a SB dropping that for a year, but $60 mil guaranteed is too large a gamble for him. I'll be shocked if he gets anywhere near that.

Did he thank you for the advice and then remind you he requires none?

.I think you're letting emotion skew your judgment. I've spent quite a bit of time in these areas, and even have family (by marriage) who are part of the world you describe. They don't have it so great, but their problems are primarily self-imposed. There is undoubtedly an entitlement mindset and a glaring lack of responsibility. The silver spoon Mitt Romney types don't just succeed b/c their parents have money, but because their parents instill them with a decent work ethic. Now we can argue the cultural roots of this entitled mindset and lack of self-motivation, but that doesn't change the fact that all the opportunity in the world means nothing if someone refuses to do what's necessary to take advantage of it. I used to run a pizza delivery joint in one of these areas. You're not going to start off making big money, but it's a pretty easy path to being an assistant manager, and from there it's pretty easy to spring board into an entry level corporate job where you've got a footing on the ladder and the only real requirement to moving up to a reasonably comfortable level of self-sufficiency is being responsible. I couldn't find people to work. For every good worker I found out of that crowd there were 10 that didn't want to work, wouldn't come to work, and generally took no responsibility. It was foreign to me why someone with nothing but idle time wouldn't want to improve their situation, but that's the way it is. I know this is anecdotal but I've seen this trend consistently over time, across regions, and heard the same thing from virtually any business manager or owner I've ever spoken with on the matter. Plus, "takers" isn't just reserved to welfare recipients, in the traditional understanding of welfare. Rich farmers get millions in handouts every year. We're told it's somehow in our best interest, as though food would cease to be available otherwise, but the truth is that those subsidies buy a lot of votes. It's the corporations that lobby to have favorable regulations put in place to sifle their competition. It's the people collecting disability checks who aren't legitimately disabled. It's the people who insist on raising someone else's tax while reducing theirs. I even include people who maybe aren't actually taking anything but vote based on what they think the government will give them - how many people thought Obama was going to pay their bills? How many people thought Obama was going to pay for their health insurance? I think it's undeniable that a growing % of the population votes based on what they think the government is going to give them. I also think you know this. I like you better when you use your regular s/n I actually see the similarities though. I force logic on the libs much the way Ben forces himself on drunk chicks.

I've been quite vocal about my distaste for him.

Does anyone have a link to these reports where the NFL claimed that concussions were completely harmless?