LSHMEAB
-
Posts
5,380 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by LSHMEAB
-
-
8 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:
"sheer glee", at his...what?
Did you miss the post where someone predicted Dareus would be living under a bridge with his "homies?"
It would make A LOT more sense if Dareus demanded a trade, left via FA'cy or had some kind of anti-Bills vendetta. None of that occurred.
I'm old enough to remember the defense getting absolutely gashed 3 games in a row after his departure, so maybe the whole effort thing was overblown, eh? He was overpaid and there is a 0.0 percent chance he'll return to the Bills, so I don't quite get the fascination.
I find it strange. You find it normal. Whatever floats one's boat.
-
57 minutes ago, BigBillsFan said:
We're on a board where people common insult each other for bad grammar, misspelling
"commonly."
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 2/26/2020 at 12:52 PM, jeremy2020 said:
I get what you're going for, but it's a fan forum. This is like going to a strip club and complaining about the patrons not acting like good Christians. Things are going to embellished and people are going to say things in a more extreme manner than they likely really feel.
Also, the idea that people can't criticize someone if they don't have the equivalent of success in their field that the person they are criticizing has in theirs is sort of a strange one.
It's really not the critique of his play or lack of motivation, etc. that strikes me as troublesome.
It's the sheer glee at what is perceived as MD's misfortune. It's just....strange. I don't use message boards to spout hyperbolic nonsense that I don't really "feel." I use them to interact as I normally would and read/learn/interact.
But that's just me.
No interest in bringing him back and I'm sure that feeling is shared by Beane/McDermott and Dareus himself. So there's that.
-
6 hours ago, KRC said:
IMO, this is where conservatives (not Republicans) differ with liberals (not Democrats). Liberals want to see the government take control of this issue. Conservatives want to see the private sector take control. Arguments can be made on both sides. However, my personal opinion is that it should be handled in the private sector. The government has proven that they are incapable of being efficient with my money. There is not one single program that is efficiently run. Money just goes down a black hole. Granted, there are private companies and charities that are the same, but I have a choice on where I donate my money. I can see the ineffective charities that are bloated with executive pay and other bureaucratic nonsense and can funnel my money where it would do the most good.
If we were to have a government solution, it should be pushed to the closest government to the actual problem. Therefore, local governments should be responsible for taking care of local residents. By the time the fed has taken their cut to pay for the bureaucracy, then the state takes their cut to pay for the bureaucracy, there is not much left on the local level to actually implement it. Keep it local and let the locals determine where the money is needed the most.
Just my $0.02.
Appreciate those $0.02 and the fact that we're having conversations about issues as opposed to Palace intrigue.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, 1915 Buffalo Bill Cody fan said:
@GG talking about taxes as if that is how the budget is funded is INSANE delusional or incompetent....since 1992 borrowing funds the fascist corporations economy and many wealthy don't pay any taxes besides the criminal economy which is cash or barter such as drugs for prostitution.....talking as if Congress and the fed are annual deliberations resulting in a budget is AGAIN fake news lies being spewed upon here by brainwashed people unwilling to speak plainly and accurately....bankster gangster zionist genocidal monsters run USA and the world polluter oil war crime profiteering scams in 160 countries since 2007 stealing TRAINLOADS OF money not audited and USA borrows many billion$ just to pay interest upon 22 billion owed to bond holders since 1965 stealing Social Security Trust Funds for General Budget outlays....voting for any Democrat or Republican is a vote for more of the same it is neither liberal nor conservative it is FACIST THEFT by printing money and making coins out of cheap metals not worth the face value of the money....vote for honest truthful government WWW.HOWIEHAWKINS.US peace through Green jobs
Ok. I'm not the type of guy who believes in omnipotent cabals, illuminati's, new world orders, birtherism, Russian Collusion, (interference has been proven), Sandy Hook nonsense, 9/11 "truthers." Any of it. I personally think people give far too much credit to the "powers that be."
It matters not whether these theories emanate from the left side of the aisle or the right.
Maybe some of these things are true. I don't know. Nor do you or anyone else on this board, and I say that respectfully.
I view these THEORIES much the same way I view God; until someone can PROVE a positive, I'm going to believe a negative. But that's just me.
-
33 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:
Consider why that particular deduction is in place:American population growth is cratering, as it is in most of the First World, and our social safety net is a gigantic Ponzi scheme requiring more and more new births (future tax payers) to support a top heavy, aging population. Which is why the establishment elite is so keen on importing a large population from our third world neighbors, and giving them citizenship. It a) keeps them in power, and b) staves off wide scale government collapse during their tenure by kicking the can down the road.
The child tax credit is social engineering designed to prop up the long term health of Social Security.
I get it. We need more young people paying into the system, not COLLECTING that SS check.
I would have to say that neither party wants to touch SS, so I'm not sure this is a partisan issue. The third world country folks, if true, is definitely partisan because Dems "generally" get these votes.
Seems to me there are enough people here and social engineering to create MORE citizens is back a##wards. We don't need to go the China route, but if what you say is the objective, I don't like it.
-
2 minutes ago, GG said:
But that's what I mean when I say he isn't honest. Taxes on the middle class would go up by way more than 4%, and he's being dishonest about it.
He refuses to provide any detail on the funding for Medicare for all, but it's easy to see how he plans to implement it by hearing what else he says about his plan.
Essentially he wants to eliminate all private insurance and replace all the premiums companies and individuals pay for health insurance with a health tax. Because most of these premiums are paid by employers, he can claim that taxes on individuals will only go up by a little, because the big part of the health tax will be paid by employers. The trouble with the plan is that you are replacing a voluntary $12k premium payment by companies with a compulsory $12k tax per head. Realistically, the tax would be higher because you would need to cover the costs of the unemployed. This scheme could work with large employers;oyers, but would be more painful for smaller employers, whose participation will be necessary to provide universal coverage.
I mean, the heart of the plan isn't really designed to be deficit neutral. That's obvious. We're talking about human beings, so the plan is designed to provide coverage to all Americans. Essentially, is healthcare a right or a privilege? You've also got to take into account the enormous cost ER's take on because poor/uninsured folks already have a "right" to healthcare if you will.
As far as employers go, I suppose they would be paying more in taxes, but it WOULD also eliminate the headache of providing employees insurance. You could make the case that the plan would increase companies' incentive to HIRE more people when you eliminate that perk.
-
7 minutes ago, Helpmenow said:
Keith Ellison
-
On 2/25/2020 at 7:11 PM, njbuff said:
Vince Ferragamo
Kevin Everett?
-
3 hours ago, row_33 said:
Heading into the 1989 season, Bills had just lost the AFC title game the third season of Jim Kelly
but the year flopped ending in Cleveland with Ronnie Harmon dropping one of the easiest gimme TD passes ever
Amswers pretending Flutie was grounds for optimism is false and punishable....
The excitement heading into 99 wasn't really about Flutie(from a practical perspective). This was a different era of football in which QB's weren't as prolific and the run game/defense mattered quite a bit more. Moulds had already established himself as a beast and Antoine Smith looked like a stud in the making.
It was the defense and Wade Phillips that really created the optimism. Wade had a brief stint in Denver as a HC, but 1998 was the first time he was given full reign. We came within one play of winning a playoff game after starting 0-3 during his first year as HC with the Bills. There was tons of optimism because they had some serious weapons at WR/RB and a DOMINATING defense.
We also hadn't experienced the drought, so there wasn't the same level of cynicism, at least for me personally.
-
2
-
-
18 minutes ago, GG said:
Don’t forget the credits that are applied to taxes. The biggest is the $2k credit per child, which drops the tax bill a lot. A family with one child in a household making $50k will pay $1k in total taxes after basic deductions and credits.
There was an op-ed in the WSJ today talking about how the US has the most progressive effective tax regime. The EU countries may have higher top marginal rates, but the income tax burden is spread much more evenly in them. If Bernie was honest, he’d be upfront with the voters that all their taxes are going to be raised by a LOT! For all his talk about taxing millionaires and billionaires, the reality is that there isn’t enough money available to pay for everything he wants to do.
Well, I think he's relatively up front in comparison to most politicians. Pocahontas attempted to dance around the issue. Bernie came right out in the debate and said that even MIDDLE CLASS taxes would be raised by 4 percent to pay Medicaid for all.
Just to follow up; I don't disagree with your first paragraph. 50K a year with one kid? Yeah. You gotta be paying more than 2%. Kid probably costs more than 2k a year, but that doesn't mean your deduction should be THAT high. It's your kid. If we're ever going to get the deficit under control while maintaining some safety nets, that's unacceptable.
-
6 minutes ago, KayAdams said:
I think that ratio is only useful as a rhetorical device for left-wing progressives.
Right. Because the average person doesn't and shouldn't care what the CEO is earning as long as they're doing well. Solid point.
Here's the deal as it pertains to my perspective; Sociopath is a bit strong for my taste for those who have acquired means, but they're obviously good at gaming the system. They're "good at life" so to speak. I don't begrudge Bezos, Bloomberg, Branson for attaining massive amounts of wealth. They're obviously innovate and they've earned the right to have massive amounts of wealth.
BUT, there are folks who are just not "good at life." Some would like to label ALL of them as lazy, etc. That's fine. Some probably are. But many of them are simply not gifted. So the question becomes; do you want to directly help these people or go with a Darwinian approach in which they're twisting in the mind. I would prefer a social safety net that provides them some scraps. They're not gonna life well, but at least they'll have some scraps. Some hold the view that they either sink or swim on their own merit. It's a valid, although somewhat heartless position.
So how do you directly help these people? That's a tough question, but I think it's worth exploring. You could take the approach of slashing all social programs, which is where this thing is headed given the deficit. That's one approach. I'd rather find a reasonable solution that involves government intervention.
Cut off their scraps, and they'll probably end up in prison. Know why? Because they probably suck at crime too. "Good" criminals don't end up in prison. The notion of profiteering from incarceration personally sickens me.
I'll leave it at that, but appreciate the well thought out response.
11 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:There's a lot to be learned from other posters here. Generally speaking but with a few exceptions, each of us has something to offer. You seem to be a person who is willing to take a second look at a subject and admit when other people know more about it than you do. Too many liberals here have preconceived ideas that are set in stone. Others are so immature that they post offensive pictures just because they are a dick or cherry pick a sentence or paragraph out of an article that is behind a paywall to post what is in affect a lie. Stay civil and open minded and you'll not have posters being a dick to you. BTW, a certain prolific poster here who everyone thinks is a right wing kind of a guy was a bleeding heart liberal 6 years ago. There's hope for you.
You won't like this post!
-
3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:
I’m not approaching this looking to defeat anyone.I’m simply suggesting that there is a good deal of very relevant information you lack in order to form a fully educated opinion on the topic.
I’m trying to help you to learn by steering you towards that information because you have a history here of being interested, honest, and decent.
Appreciate the compliment. While I have my views and I'll voice them, I give credit where it's due. There are A LOT of conservative idiots who espouse nonsense; obviously the same goes for liberals. But there are exceptions.
I value your intellect in the same way I value the intellect of people like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson.
We all live very short lives. I want to know WHY and even if I disagree with a Ben Shapiro, I feel like I learned something.
-
2
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, GG said:
The numbers back it up. The worst thing about recent tax laws was the elimination of a huge chunk of the American public from income taxes. You've seen the stats in how 47% of the population doesn't pay any income tax. Conversely, the top 20% pays 80% of the tax burden, and the top 1% pays about 50% of income taxes. That's not a very good tax base to implement the liberal agenda. And that's exactly how the socialist downward spirals begin.
OK. Well, I know you don't have to file taxes if you make less than 12.5k. That's a little different than paying because I'm sure there's a gap between 12.5 and the amount at which you still wouldn't PAY anything.
But what's the max an individual can make and still not PAY any taxes? Like 25k? If 47% of Americans are making less than this threshold, THAT'S A PROBLEM!
-
14 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:
You’re not familiar with the history of the intersectional movement?It was started by communist activists, who came to realize that their class warfare dogma had failed, and set upon racial strife hoping to create divides.
It was the same people.
At this point you don’t get one without the other because the dogma was intertwined.
I'm gonna gracefully bow out of this particular exchange; It's become evident over time that I stand a 0.0 percent chance of "defeating" YOU in a debate.
-
Really hope Bernie doesn't get sucked into pandering to the #MeToo, PC police crowd.
That stuff flies in DC and Cali, but NOWHERE else. These PERSONAL attacks on Bloomberg do nothing but turn off voters in AMERICA.
My honest assessment is that "liberal," (not of the neoliberal variety) policies are actually popular. It's the fringy assaults on free speech that serve as the Dem's greatest detriment in places like Ohio, PA, WI, and Michigan.
-
16 minutes ago, GG said:
I'm arguing reality. A 1% tax rate will have 100% compliance because the cost of avoidance will be more than 1%.
The perfect tax rate would be set at the exact intersection of tax compliance and tax avoidance costs. Miraculously than number is always around 20%-25%. Funny how that works.
I think it would probably be lower than 20-25 percent; probably somewhere close to 15 percent in terms of that intersectionality. There's always the option of aggressively targeting tax avoiding corporations that operate chiefly in America and/or have outsourced their HQ's, yet mainly sell their goods here. Be very tough to get anything done considering we have a congress(both sides) largely beholden to corporate/special interest groups, but it's worth a shot. The concept itself is not far removed from trade wars and tariffs, which I SUPPORT.
As is the case with the trade wars, the NUMBER 1 asset America possesses is it's market. Want to use our market? Pay your taxes.
In reality, you may very well believe that corporations/1 percenters already pay enough. That's a perfectly reasonable stance. I disagree.
-
3 minutes ago, GG said:
Nobody here has ever argued that the healthcare industry doesn't need changes to be implemented. Name one product that you buy where you have no idea of the cost before you buy it?
Ironically, the evil Trump has signed more orders that improve transparency on healthcare pricing than any President in history. He's also the only one to target the Pharma sector to be more transparent. He's doing things that actually matter to controlling costs, rather than bloviating false promises.
I'm not obsessed with Trump, and he has taken measures to address big Pharma, which I applaud. He hasn't done enough, but at least he's taken some targeted steps in the right direction.
6 minutes ago, GG said:I think it's a rather compelling argument. What's the point of having high tax rates if nobody ever pays that rate? I would much rather collect 25% of something than 90% of nothing.
But that's just me.
This argument really doesn't seem logical. You could make the corporate >1m/year rate 1% and they'd still try to pay 0. They'll try to pay zero regardless of where you set the rate.
-
13 minutes ago, GG said:
Throwing out percentages without context is useless. I'm sure you also know that in the days of 90% tax rates, deductions were unlimited and encompassed almost every possible deduction. That meant that the very people who the Bernies of the world thought would pay a 90% tax, actually paid 0% tax. Worse than that a cottage industry grew up that specialized in selling tax shelters, meaning that for a small $10k investment you could buy $50k of tax deductions. Not bad is it?
What the Bernies of the world don't realize is that the people he thinks he can fleece for all their worth, are the ones who have the wherewithal to escape the tax.
You're also ignoring what happened in the decades between '60s and '80s and the mess that the economy was in before Reagan saved it by unleashing capitalism again. Laissex faire was needed to invigorate stagnant investment which was sitting on the sidelines. Which is another lesson the Bernies of the world never understand. If there's no incentive for investment, nobody is going to invest. That's a lesson Venezuela didn't learn, thinking that the oil would come gushing out of the ground no matter what.
The reset is only called for by people needing political points. It would do nothing to actually solve the problem you are trying to solve. When you enact policies that affect the super wealthy job creators, guess who gets hit first and hardest?
Then isn't using US health outcomes a red herring when discussing the effectiveness of US healthcare?
As far as I can tell, you're not really making a case against taxing the rich at a higher rate; rather implying that they'll never pay them. Not quite sure what to make of that, but I know corporate lobbyists will be going HARD after Bernie. You think they're gonna go hard because they're concerned about the guy on disability or the guy making 40k a year?
As far as healthcare goes, I conceded that America has obesity issues as well as addiction issues; almost certainly at a greater rate than the majority of countries. While it's a mitigating factor, it certainly doesn't fully explain the problem. I would say the Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex is the single greatest factor for the cost and PERHAPS, the outcomes. Docs pop out pills because they get kickbacks and MANY of these drugs, even non opioids, have a deleterious affect on people's overall health.
You make a good point about the economy during the NIXON, Ford, Carter era, but fail to address the inevitable crash when the laissez faire approach is taken.
-
4 minutes ago, Rob's House said:
As to upward mobility, I believe those numbers are misleading as they ignore the cause of poor people who remain poor. Our welfare state largely encourages and enables people born into it to remain in it. Also, there are cultural considerations in play that cannot be explained by lack of opportunity.
I'll refrain from the cultural considerations issue because I think it's got some merit, but it's a little dicey.
I completely disagree that America's welfare state plays a role in upward mobility. If you look at the numbers, the countries at the top of this list; Denmark, Finland, Canada, Sweden, they all have a much more robust welfare state than does the United States. But to your point, these countries are also monoethnic, so there's that.
7 minutes ago, Rob's House said:There are a few points there so I'll take them in order.
The fact that resources are arguably finite does not mean goods and services are finite or anywhere near capacity. In the 1850s Marx thought humanity had reached its technological peak and we needed to focus on more equitable distribution of the finite resources in existence.
Production of goods and services increases every day.
This raises yet another problem. Production of goods and services increase every day, but that's largely a function of automation. Automation may pose an existential threat to our economy. We'll see what happens there, but there are very few professions that can't ultimately be replaced by a machine.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Rob's House said:
What I was getting at is the idea that people at the top making lots of money causes people in lower brackets to have less. I'm not sure that you're taking that position, but many do, & as far as I can tell it's a baseless theory.
See, now that is really a fascinating concept. I don't know that I fully agree. Considering that the world contains a finite number of resources and can only create a finite number of services or goods, I do think it's quite possible that the rich getting richer negatively affects those at the bottom wrung. The tricky part there is that as a country, you want to have the most resources BECAUSE they are finite. So while I would like to see LESS income disparity, pulling that off without alienating business is really, really tough.
But where I'm at, which likely differs from your perspective, is that I think it's a worthwhile endeavor.
On a personal level, which means absolutely nothing; I ALWAYS take the side of the "underdog/little guy/powerless." So my focus is going to be on that demo. Pretty sure CEO's and 1 percenters don't need any advocates.
What concerns me most about our economy is that the upward mobility rates are trash. We rank 16th out of 24 among the wealthiest nations in the world in terms of those born poor emerging into a higher class. I think that's a problem.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, 1915 Buffalo Bill Cody fan said:
@LSHMEAB telling the truth to @Deranged Rhino is pointless..
Appreciate the sentiment, but DR has "schooled" me many times. I think you can have constructive dialogue about the economy without getting into catfights.
-
1
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:
You are correct that the top tax rates were once up to 90%. What you don't say though is that at that time there were so many loopholes that nobody paid anywhere near that rate. Nobody.
I would have to check into that, and I'm sure this is correct. Still....That's pretty high. TOO HIGH.
Just want to reiterate that my views are not anti-rich. If somebody like Bill Gates creates something that alters the world, he deserves to become wealthy. That's where I think we (progressives) need to be careful. You never want to stymie innovation.
-
4 hours ago, Rob's House said:
The real question is WHY is it a problem. It seems the underlying implication is that those who are struggling would have more if those at the top made less. I'm curious if that's your reasoning?
Yeah. And I've read P.J O'Rourke's book regarding pizza, slices, and such. Solid counterarguments that I don't personally buy.
Did you know that America, yes, the United States of America, once taxed the top 1 percent roughly 90 PERCENT of their earnings? This was in the 50's and 60's to pay for GI Bills and such. We needed to make America great again; is THIS the time period in which we needed to return or is it ONLY the 1980's laissez faire approach, which of course lead to a huge deficit crisis, just as the roaring 20's lead to 1929. Is Bernie Sanders proposing anything CLOSE to a 90 percent marginal rate? The answer is of course not. You can disagree with his policies, but the notion that these proposals are DRASTIC alterations from anything we've seen before just doesn't mesh with history.
The reason I ask the question regarding CEO/worker ratio is because I believe capitalism is great, but requires a proverbial reset button on occasion. It's entirely possible that Sanders is TOO extreme. Maybe. I don't know.
But the reason I posed the question is that I believe unchecked capitalism WOULD lead to soaring CEO/worker rates. Like I said, does it become a problem if it's 10,000 to 1? I would say yes. That's a problem.
Once again Rob; I don't want to see any policies that preclude folks from getting extremely wealthy through innovation and creativity. That would lead to disastrous consequences. But I have zero problem with taxing those at the top a slightly higher rate for things like healthcare and higher minimum wage standards. Free tuition? That's a bit far for my taste. I think there should be MORE assistance for kids who did well in high school but come from poor backgrounds. Free for everyone? Meh. Little too far.
Last thing I'll say on this is that if the minimum wage were adjusted for inflation from it's inception, we'd be talking about raising it to 19 and change an hour. Sanders is proposing 15/hr. So historically speaking, the minimum wage would STILL not top where it's been right here in America.
Ok. I lied. Democrats have lost all their credibility regarding Trump with nonsensical investigations and accusations. It's a little different because of the time lapse, but R's lost a lot of cred with their proclamations regarding an Obama Presidency. Remember when he was a socialist and the country would be destroyed? I don't think people feel that way about 2009-2017. Now Sanders is much more progressive than Obama, but those fear tactics are fresh in my mind; not so sure people have long enough memories for that to matter electorally.
4 hours ago, GG said:How much of the USA's healthcare rankings affected by lifestyle choices and addictions vs healthcare delivery?
LOL. Probably quite a bit if we're being honest.
-
3
-
Jaguars to decline DT Marcell Dareus' option
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
You missed the word that proceeded misfortune. It was "perceived."
We all make mistakes.