bills_fan

Funny... MI has been called for BO and BO is losing by 15,000 votes.

Adding in Buchanan and Coolidge, IMHO, make up the worst 6 we have ever had. We can debate the rank, but those are probably the worst. I don't count Harrison, as he was only in office for 30 days.

I think you could throw Harding and Hoover in with Carter and GW Bush as well.

As president of Planet Spaceball, I can assure both you and your viewers that there's absolutely no air shortage whatsoever. Yes, of course. I've heard the same rumor myself. Yes, thanks for calling and not reversing the charges. Bye-bye.

Thats one part of the problem. Another is that bankruptcies soared 40% in October. Also, household credit card debt is soaring.. The 2nd largest vendor for credit card payments...McDonalds.... Don't forget about the massive layoffs coming, and the ancillary jobs that will be laid off as well. That strains the city/state coffers making that situation worse. Finally, consumers are starting to skip the utility bill? We are barely into the second quarter (in football terms) here, and things will get much, much worse before they get better. Thats what President Obama will have to figure a way through, while not completely capping future US growth potential beyond 2010.

We still have the old machines in NY. Took my 3 year old son into the voting booth this morning, he got a kick out of pulling the lever.

I was referring to domestic issues. Given that we are probably, in football terms, in the second quarter of our economic meltdown, I think domestic issues will of paramount importance.

I'm hoping he ends up being Bill Clinton II on many, many issues. Leaving the snide sarcasm about Clinton aside, thats probably the best we can hope for (and it would be a good thing for the country).

Yep. No change for me no matter who wins.

Sad, but true, the GOP will turn more conservative, not less, as a result of this thumping. The only positive is that most of the Dems elected to Congress in the last election (and maybe this one) were moderate, center Dems. The far left may be in authority, but any wild new gov't programs would threaten the new moderates far more than the far left. That, sadly, is the only check on the far left that will be left after this election. Too bad the moderates of both parties could not form the third party of my dreams and marginalize both the far right and left. Now, the moderates are the proverbial political football beholden to the raving lunatics on both sides.

I totally agree. I also think we really *should have, could have* won the last two games. Stupid mistakes and bad playcalling are, IMHO, to blame. These are correctable, but we better get it done fast.

When I was in HS, a kid was killed while driving home one night. No booze or anything, just lost control of the car on ice, flipped it into a creek and drowned. Being a Jesuit school, we had priests to speak to if we wanted and they sent for a grief counselor. No pressure, if you wanted to talk to this person, they were available all week in a room. If not, no big deal. Also the priests were available to talk about it. I don't see that making a professional available to talk is a bad thing. Forcing students to talk or listen to some speech about grief would be awful.

I'll be sure to tell my friend at Cantor Fitz to "get over it." You really are a dumb m&*thf*5cker!!

I agree. Any plan should require the homeowner to return any equity to the government above the refi amount + the homeowner's down payment (if any existed). I understand about the whole moral hazard thing but if we don't address the root of the problem, falling home values, we will continue to spiral further down. Moral hazard is a great concept...until you have to bite the bullet. Letting LEH fail showed the gov't won't bail everyone out....until LEH failing forced the gov't to bail everyone out, or lose the whole system. I think Hank wishes he had a mulligan on that one.

They had me at the first two, but the social conservatism is what will eventually destroy the party. The libertarian-wing doesn't want to hear about it and many blatantly disregard it. Give me small government, states rights, yes, national security (but intelligently, not buy every new shiny toy) and social liberalism....sign me up.

Really pleasantly suprised he acknowledged this question. I don't think too many Bills fans would not acknowledge that TD did lay the foundation for the current team. The guys still on the roster who were a product of the TD era are as follows: Kelsey/Schobel/Denney/Crowell/McGee/Evans/Peters/Lindell/Moorman/Parrish/Reed I think that it would be an inetresting conversation with Mort on this... TD's four main faults, IMHO, and the reason he was fired is as follows: 1- Inability to pick coaches. TD interviewed Jauron and Mularkey after GW was fired. RW was interested in Jauron, TD sold him on Meathead. This after the Greggo fiasco. TD should have gone with the experienced hand. 2- Going for the splashy move rather than the better choice. Se McGahee, Willis. Eric Steinbach was the pick there. 3- Negelecting the lines. After the MW bust (no fault there), the lines were neglected and our team was a paper tiger. Gotta build the lines, even if it does not generate much press. Letting Reuben Brown and Pat Williams go was inexcusable. 4- Control syndrome - TD was Captain Queeg at the end. Having critical (but not profane) signs yanked away from fans during games showed how far he had lost it. He also did not foster a cooperative atmosphere around OBD. I would characterize Mort's description of "rudderless" as unfair. The 98 and 99 Bills were very good teams. The 2000 team was 8-8, in cap hell, and we needed to rebuild. But the organization was a sound organization.

I agree with this completely. The GOP was always a tenuous coalition of neo-cons, social conservatives and libertarian fiscal conservatives. This coalition has broken down. The neo-cons ran the show, the social conservatives lost the fight they really wanted to win (US Supreme Court) and the libertarian fiscal conservatives have been abused due to spending and the erosion of personal liberties. What could bring it back? Not sure if it will ever come back, it was always an unholy alliance. Personally, I'd love to see a 3rd party made up of the libertarian fiscal conservatives and center-right Dems. Leave everyone else in the dust. Not sure that will happen though.

Dane Looker of the Rams may disagree with you after he met McKelvin. But I agree with your point, we need to get more aggressive.

Just being a fan and looking ahead a bit...if we finish the next two games at 6-3, that has the potential to be 10-3 very quickly. After we travel to NE, we host CLE, @KC, host SF and play the Fins in Tor (where I expect we will win). If we ended the year only winning 1 out of our last 3 games (@NYJ, @Den, NE), I could see the division being ours at 11-5. Thats the advantage of a 5-1 start, not doing all kind of crazy scenarios for us to get in every week.

We may be talking further.

Meaning a whole life policy, paying an annuity over time. That annuity is tax free?

Never thought of that, great idea. Unfortunately, I don't qualify for the Roth. The traditional IRA does not permit tax-free withdrawals right? Just tax free growth?

So how many people are showing up to your place as migrant fruit pickers? Went to a theme party last Saturday...theme was 1970s NYC - Come like you are going to Studio 54 in its heyday. Some very cool costumes.

You have two concepts here...the Estate Tax and capital gains tax. As to the capital gains tax. Warren Buffet derives ALL of his income from capital gains (which are taxed at 15%). His secretary pays taxes at oridinary income levels (anywhere from 30-36%). Now, of course, you need the capital to actually have enough money to live off the capital gains. For Buffet, not a problem. Most of the rest of us...not so easy. Finally, look a little deeper. In order to acquire enough money to live off capital gains, you first had to earn it (in most instances). Therefore, you already had to pay the ordinary income tax on that money. What was left, you invested, presumably wisely, and now pay an additional 15% on it (which Obama plans to make 20-25%).

I don't think the question ever was "Should Warren Buffet pay more taxes?" The question was in setting thresholds. Does $250k qualify as "rich?" Not in NYC it doesn't. It barely qualifies as upper middle class. But, in Bumblefukistan, USA, I'm sure $250k does make you very well off. Point was always that Obama's threshold was far too low for what he was saying. Not too many would have balked if Obama said he wanted to raise the top rate on thoise making $1 million or more a year. EVen in 2008, tehre aren't that many people making that. Setting it far lower, at $250k, is what the whole Joe the Plumber phemonanon is about...guy works hard, just gets a piece of living better and now this guy wants to Spread the wealth...that makes people angry. It has nothing to do wiith Aristocracy vs. Meritocracy. If it did, the level would be at $1 million or more.