JimBob2232

This is a fairly easy problem to fix...if anyone wants to do it right. Here is my plan Note: (Numbers given are for example only, someone with a better understanding of the finances involved would need to come up with the appropriate numbers): 1) Completely phase in FULL social security privitization. Right now 15% of your salary goes into the social security fund. Start immediatly diverting 5% of that into a private account for workers still working. 5% of your money will go into a private account regardless of how much money you make each year (i.e. no 90k cap). This money is yours. 2) The remaining 10% not going into private accounts is put aside to pay the benefits of workers currently recieving social security, and those who will be partially phased out due to the new private accounts once they retire. 3) To cover the shortfall in the social secuirty system due to money being diverted into private accounts, the current 90k cap will be increased to 150k. 4) Once people matriculate out of the social security system, the % going to privitazation rises upward from 5% until it is fully phased in at 15%, and all workers are fully vested in their own privatized social security account. Once all workers are fully privatized (will take many years...), the 15% rate can be dropped, to 13%. Participants would be able to draw from their privatized social security account at a younger age (say 55). The average lifespan would be determined. If men are expected to live until age 75, he has 20 years to pull all of that money out of his account. This is your retirement money, you can bank on it, because you will know exactly how much you will have every year for the rest of your life. What if you live longer than 75? Well, remember lowering that 15% to 13%? Simply divert that 2% back to those who have lived longer than their expected lifespan. It is an insurance policy on living a long life. Its pretty simple really. Like I said, I dont have all the answers, but I do think i have a better plan than whatever the republocrats and democans are coming up with in washington. GIVE US OUR MONEY BACK

Lions will be a force to be dealt with soon, as long as they stay healthy....

Oh, thats another dandy! I think you mean this one http://www.konformist.com/images/2002/Trophy.jpg

You would be a fool to NOT be interested in burress...I would like to win the lottery too, but some things are just not feasible.

Wow, thought for sure he was going to the skins

Yahoo has a history of putting these pictures in articles..I think they are hillarious. I actually collect them. The only problem is that once I pull them out, people insist they are photoshopped. My all-time favotite (had to search for it since i dont have a place to post it) http://www.weirdpicturearchive.com/pics/di...ardtshadow.html

My guess is that Law is asking for a 1-2 year contract to prove he is healthy again and then cash in.... If that is the case, this whole trading NC will backfire and we will have no secondary next year.

Likely a new contract for TH will involve a low 2005 cap hit. Thats usually they way they work these things. Removing shelton from the books should be enough to cover the cap hit TH's signing bonus would cover. That said TH is really in a tough position. He has to know that playing 1 year somewhere, ANYWHERE (besides here), would boost his paycheck next offseason. BUT no team wants to give up anything for him unless he signs a contract extension. Quite the connundrum.

In a related topic...JeremyWhite figures out the lyrics to seals kiss from a rose....developing....

Demulling would be a good place to start

Williams, Clements and Wire are all on their rookie contracts. Not much you can do about that. Tastes like chicken. Moulds...you can blame on donahoe if you like, but he is one heck of a reciever, and when TD came here back in 2001 getting EM an extension was one of the first things he did. He recently extended EM as well, which will spread his cap hit out some.

My bad. I thought it was winfield that we traded down to get and used our 2nd on henry. I dont think the vikes overpaid for winfield. I thought so last year at this time, but seeing him play for the vikes this year, i think they got a good deal. He definatly stepped up his play some last season over what we saw in buffalo. And spoon was a 4th round pick...so i wouldnt say he was really a washout. 4th round is pretty risky....but man I dont know why he never panned out. He was pretty good for us back in 01. (65 tackles 2 int)

Little confused... Who is the washout? Spoon? What about winfield?

Minnesota is being VERY smart with their cap. Instead of giving players signing bonuses, they are giving them roster bonuses, mostly due in the first year. This causes the cap hit to be made in the year the FA is signed and not have the bonus spread out throughout the contract. It creates a very large cap hit the year of the signing, but for the remainder of the contract it is much lower, plus if they cut the player at some point in the future, the dead cap space is minimized. Very smart

The challange comes in the time to complete the test. That entire 15 question test posted on espn should take 5 minutes. I tried to do it (in 5 minutes) and only got 1 wrong (actually i didnt answer it), because it involved some brainwork and i wanted to finish the test and come back to it...which i didnt have time to do. But yeah...a six! Amazing

50= highest possible score, superior intelligence 21= average intelligence 14= equivalent to unskilled worker Below 14= moron BTW Dan Marino = 16 Drew Bledsoe -37 Elway 30 Aikman 29 Young 33 ESPN has a little bit of the test here (not this years, but an example) http://espn.go.com/page2/s/closer/020228test.html

As usual Miami takes the "student" part out of student athlete. Frank Gore. A SIX are you kidding me? Brock Berlin...a QUARTERBACK with a 13. Amazing

Well at least jeff george wasnt on the list!! I think it has something to do with Kelley not being a starting QB. he is good enough to be one, but really hasnt been one for any extended period of time. I am still shocked he chose to come here and be a backup rather than stay in cleveland and likely be the starter this season.

Are you kidding me? What in the world makes someone think they can get away with stealing a laptop from an airport security screening station. Amazing.

It is on again right now (or after the commercial)

Not bad...not bad at all.

EXACTLY! Someone gets what im trying to say here. Is it practical to make everyone cut a check every quarter and mail it in? Probably not. For one, it would be very cost prohibitive to do so. It would also never happen because the people we elect to send to washington do not want us to realize how much we spend in taxes. And you are right, there would have to be increased law enforcement oversight to track down deadbeats. My point was that people simply do not know how much they pay to the government. You and I might, but the fact we are having this discussion means that we are much more intune to our financial picture that at least 50% of the population. If everyone realized how much of their paycheck goes to the federal goverment, they would be outraged. And washington would have no choice but to cut spending.

When you get a speeding ticket, it is a tax. Are you proposing we do away with speeding tickets because it gives the government control over the marionette strings? Ugh, I just dont know what to say anymore. If you read into what I wrote JUST A LITTLE, you would see that I AM NOT AGAINST A CONSUMPTION TAX. You would see that i AM for helping people achieve things that they otherwise couldnt achieve, ESPECIALLY when those achievements (such as an education) help better our society as a whole. Again I AM NOT AGAINST A CONSUMPTION TAX, but there are aspects of our current tax system which are very beneficial, and they should be incorporated into a new system, whatever that new system may be. I am against government regulation of our daily lives. I am against censorship of the airwaves and the internet. I am against the majority of gun control laws. I am against countless other regulations the government imposes on us. There is a difference between a government that gives an incentive to people to better themselves and their country and one which forces people to do as the government chooses. Nobody is forcing you to go to college, or buy an electric car, but if you choose to do so, the government helps you out and gives you a tax break to help it be more affordable. THIS IS A GOOD THING, and it is not to be confused with a controlling government (though other aspects of government are very controlling) As far as government funding of schools, I am completely against a public school system as we know it. I think there should be a system of for-profit private schools, regulated by the government, with annual achievement tests and published results, and parents should be allowed to choose where their child goes. Funding would come from the government based on the number of students each school enrolls. Perform well, parents want to send their kids to your school, you make alot of money. Perform poorly, parents pull their kids out and send them to a competing school. We keep throwing billions of dollars into education and get no results. Money does not solve the problem. Accountability and the profit motive would. I dont trust the government to do much of anything. But that doesnt mean I shouldnt trust the government to do anything. Once again, there is a difference between encouraging desireable behavior which is good for all americans, and controlling personal freedoms and choices.

Gulp....what in the world did we just pay him then???

Ya know... its tough to have a rational discussion when the person you are conversing with does not seem to be able to be rational. I dont see how giving people a tax break to help aid them in going to college and and bettering themselves (and their country) gives the government control over them. I dont see how aiding people in owning land, providing permanent shelter and a suitable place to raise their children is the government controlling them. Are you saying that all taxes levied to solicit a specific behavior should be removed from our laws?