keepthefaith

Paul voted against the bill so he voted against funding the project.

But at what interest rate? Let's say 10 years from now the debt rises to $23T and interest rates move toward more recent norms of say 10 years ago. Quick math says we could be spending $800B per year to service the debt, double what it is today. Add to that the growth in entitlement spending and sluggish growth in GDP and the hole (expense) just continues to increase faster than any hope of revenue increase.

Good step in the right direction reducing deficit to $700b. If we were on our way to zero and there was some determination to get there, all the better but there is little leadership in Washington that will commit to that. The interest on our debt is a giant ball and chain and creates a lot of long term risk with even small moves in interest rates. That's the saddest part of where we are in my book. Your comment that "GDP is the ultimate source of taxes" is spot on. Too bad we can't get any pro growth policies in place other than deficit spending that would positively impact GDP.

You need to be strapped to a chair in room by yourself for 24 hours listening to Mark Levin radio episodes non-stop.

You have a crystal ball? Of course I wasn't serious.

You realize that the results of the entire contest have already been determined. The judge has already filled out the bracket. Your fate has been determined already. The judge is simply making us all go through this for his/her own pleasure. For sure you would have been a high seed in this but my hunch is that the judge decided with good reason that your ego did not need a victory.

Or it's something else. Our health ins rates were always given to us at a per employee cost (the average cost per employee). The only differentiator was single coverage or family coverage. We never we able to see the cost for each employee or each family based on age or risk. Now through beloved Obamacare, we are given the individual rates and wouldn't ya know that the older folks cost 3 times what the younger ones cost. Plus the increases across the board are huge. So all of the sudden as an employer that pays a large part of the premiums for employees, we have a real incentive to employ younger people.

Very high if the judge wants to keep the best punching bag in the competition.

You have a chance in this competition to go deep which should significantly improve the entertainment quality for the rest of us. This is your big chance to shine.

And to judge.... Thank you for putting this contest together and allowing me to continue. Should be a fun ride for everyone tuned in.

You may be right. The first post was mostly BS as I thought the judge might appreciate it but the winning formula is clearer now. Glad we had fun with that but my comment that you are a sitting duck in round two was a serious one. Only favoritism by the judge (again) will keep you alive. For the record, I think Snyder should fight these idiots to the very end and ride the wave of public support that should happen as these overly sensitive groups step up their attack.

My position is that the Redskins should change their name before they are forced to do it. Your position is that the Redskins will only change their name when they are forced to do it so in your own stubborn way, you are arguing my point. We just disagree on the timing and the trigger for the name change. Have you looked at espn.com today? Your buddy Dan Snyder is fighting back pretty hard which means the pressure is increasing. Remember how the Republicans last year said they would never vote to raise taxes on anyone including the upper wage earners? What happened there? Never believe never my friend. Never plan for never either.

OK, so you’ve lobbed a few scud-like barbs – none of which have damaged your opponent or supported your position well. Hooray for you! I admire your consistency and cro-magnon hard headedness. You’re simply taking the sitting bull position on this. He won some battles and ultimately was attacked by his own people. That’s where Snyder sits right now. Every point you try to make is simply more of the same “ain’t gonna do it” mentality. Snyder may win some battles along the way but ultimately the league and the other owners (who care mostly about their own interests) will pressure Snyder into doing it. Here’s Goodell recently: "If we are offending one person," Goodell, the NFL commissioner, said last month, "we need to be listening." Uh oh! The debate we’re having is not if the Redskins must change their name. It’s whether or not they should. Your position is “no way, not gonna do it” but “no way, not gonna do it” has limits. Lawsuits, political pressure, court of public opinion and league interests all stand to chip away at the waning support for the Redskin name. At some point this thing reaches the tipping point and then Snyder’s hand will be forced. Your position is the same as his which is really “I’ll never change the name until I have to”. I would agree that he doesn’t have to now, but again the debate is “should” it be changed. The smart play is to move slowly in the direction toward a name change and capitalize on the many positive PR and marketing opportunities that this presents. There’s a big swing from that position to the “I’ll never change the name until I have to” position. Right now Snyder has time on his side and he should take advantage of that. He’ll burn up a lot of money, energy and brand capital defending this thing. This is big business with a big reach. The smart play is to solve this thing in the PC fashion even if it tastes bad. Frankly I’d be as stubborn publically as Snyder has been, but privately I’d be putting together the transition plan. As for this competition we’re having, I think your best bet Levi is to get down on your knees and pray to the mighty judge for double elimination. That’s your only chance to continue. You’re getting clubbed like a baby seal. Have you seen the posts in the PPP showdown thread? They're talking about charity golf tournaments. Levi, you're boring them to death with your drivel. You have made me laugh though. So has the judge. I posted all that far fetched crap in the first post and you both bought it. You responded to all of it. Now I’ve taken a shot at the judge which could get me DQ’d, but I think the judge is tougher than that. Time to end this thing. You’re a sitting duck in the next round.

We agree, tradition is meaningful. Unfortunately for Snyder somebody else may be in a position to take it away from him or tarnish it significantly. Let’s put our business advisor hats on and offer Mr. Snyder some advice. That’s OK Levi if you don’t own one of those hats. You can borrow one of mine. So far your only argument is basically that it’s Snyder’s team, it’s up to him what name is used and that the term “Redskin” isn’t offensive so he shouldn’t worry about it. You’re saying that Native Americans for the most part don’t really care. Look up the Redskin term as it was used in North America and you’ll find that it’s a reference by the white man to Indians that were scalped. No doubt it’s a derogatory and racist term. The Chicago Blackhawk name is simply a tribe name and has no derogatory meaning. Big difference. Still Levi you’re completely missing the big picture here. Pressure to change the name isn’t likely to come from Native Americans. Heck they make up less than 1% of the population and in the Washington area market less than .5% of the population. Pressure to change is coming and will come from several other sources. Here’s a few of them. 1. The liberal race sensitive media. Dozens of articles have been written on the topic in recent weeks with the vast majority clamoring for Snyder to change the name. Unfortunately for Snyder it’s good for the media business to create a story here even if it’s not all that important. Expect it to continue. Good grief several TV analysts have already adopted a policy of not using the Redskin name when talking about the football team in DC. . More will follow. 2. Snyder’s insurance company. Insurance companies hate needless risk. Snyder’s liability carrier has to be looking at this and could raise rates or drop coverage over the matter. 3. NFL management. No doubt the NFL is a very racially sensitive organization. Just look at all the diversity policies they’ve adopted in recent years. Hiring of coaches, hiring of analysts on the NFL network and the support of minority youth organizations. Goodell himself has moved his position on this matter from defending the Redskin name to now saying it’s up to Mr. Snyder. The league sees the derogatory Redskin name as counter to it’s diversity efforts. What do you think is the conversation on this in private between Roger and Dan? 4. Snyder’s fellow NFL owners will pressure him if the media buzz gets too loud. It’s one less headache for the league. 5. Politicians are now getting involved. Obama has weighed in suggesting the name be changed and civil rights groups are lobbying members of Congress. This thing is gaining traction. 6. The court of public opinion. Since the majority of the news on the topic is negative toward the Redskin name, Snyder is losing public support. 7. Lawyers. Lawyers will advise Snyder of his rights and the risks in keeping the Redskin name. Defending more suits on this matter even if Snyder prevails will cost money. Get inside an NFL owners head. What’s important to them? Making money, winning and preserving their brand value. You think because Snyder’s rich that making money is no longer a priority? You don’t know many rich business people do you. A long drawn out debate in the media or in courts on this doesn’t help Snyder achieve these goals. The Redskin brand is being hurt by this debate without a doubt. My advice to Snyder would be to get out in front of this thing before the terms of the name change are dictated to him by a court, the government or the league. He could stand to lose the opportunity to use the Redskin name in any celebration of the great history of the franchise. It’s better for him to resolve this on his terms and on his timeline rather than somebody else’s. I’d advise Snyder to begin to move privately toward a name change. That would include preparing to defend the use of the Redskin name as a part of the history of the team and working with the league to support this. I’d also advise him that there is a significant revenue opportunity for him in team merchandise. How many jersey sales of both old and new could be sold? How many other commemorative items could be produced and sold? Even documentaries could be produced. There is no better way to increase the value of something than to give it greater historical meaning. The name change would create huge demand for Redskins stuff old and new. Can you imagine how many RGIII jerseys could be sold? I’d further advise him that the fans will be the toughest group to win over but getting them involved in picking the next mascot name would be a positive. Heck many of the real Redskin fans have died since the team last won anything. Kinda like Bills fans. Younger fans are less attached to the Redskin name. You Levi, as Snyder’s trusted advisor are putting yourself and him in a lose, lose, lose situation. If he takes your advice and never is forced to change the name, a big marketing opportunity is missed. If he takes your advice and is then forced to change the name, you’re fired! If he takes my advice then that means he didn’t like yours and again you’re fired! Levi Brown, Levi Johnston? You must be a guy with a limp arm, a hard dick and a soft brain. Don’t be dumb Levi. Get on board.

OK, so we learned that the judge doesn't like arguments that stretch the truth and you took the bait. I'll respond later today as time permits.

That "Redskin" is a racial descriptor is reason enough to change the name but far from the best reason. How about we name some new teams the Harrisburg Honkies, Nantucket Negroes or the Cheektowaga Chinks? Enough of that nonsense because the real reason Daniel Snyder is being pressured to change the name has nothing to do with the racial component. What has gone wildly under-reported is why Native Americans are unhappy with the Washington football team continuing to use the name "Redskins". They're upset because the team no longer honors their values. The Native American culture emphasizes values and principles such as courage, bravery and honor. The proud Native American heritage was well represented for decades by the Washington football team winning 3 Superbowls in the 80's and 90's and a number of division championships throughout their history with players like Kilmer, Riggins, Jurgensen, Monk, Huff, Green, Grimm, Baugh and coaches like Allen and Gibbs. The teams graced with these players and coaches upheld the honor and pride of Native Americans. The Daniel Snyder era began with optimism and a sense of stability. In came a wealthy and successful businessman with the resources and business acumen to navigate this proud franchise into the modern era of football where the business of football became critical in order to achieve success on the field. Certainly Snyder would deliver the kind of performance that would continue the proud and honorable traditions of the Native American. Unfortunately for Mr. Snyder, his record as a team owner since 1999 is under .500 and during this time he's hired and fired 7 coaches none of which have a winning record. Despite all of the business experience and one of the highest payrolls in the league each year, the team is a failure under his leadership. This my friends if why Native Americans want the name changed as each losing Redskins season is a reminder of how their ancestors lost every battle with the white man and ultimately most of their land. Snyder, in order to preserve the great Washington Redskins heritage should change the name of the team before he tarnishes it even further. Frankly the Redskins football team needs a fresh start and moving the team should also be considered. Snyder's larger problem is not the changing of the name but the perception of weakness that will ensue if he caves into the pressure to do so. If he were smart he would do it immediately and do it under the guise of racial sensitivity. This may be his only way to save face as each loss, each losing season and each fired and hired coach destroys another pillar of this once proud franchise. It's the lesser of two evils and one that would be lauded by the liberal media. In addition, it may increase the value of the franchise while spawning an avalanche of revenue for the sale of new jerseys and other team gear. Daniel, don't be a fool. The media is handing you a giant opportunity on a silver platter. Seize the opportunity to get the public off your back, preserve the proud heritage of the Redskins and line your wallet while you're at it. Any capitalist pig would jump at the chance. As for you Mr. Levi, I don't expect you to grasp any of this. It can't be possible for anyone that goes by "Levi" to relate to the principles of courage, bravery or honor.

Will weigh in tonight. Have to get some work done today. This should be fun.

Realistically the Bills will have a very tough time winning more than 5 games this year. Too much youth and inexperience (not to mention lack of talent) in too many places on the team including the coaching staff.

Another insightful and fact filled post. Thank you.

Our President acts as a self-centered only child.

The political leanings for each contestant should be posted before the battle begin just to clear up any that aren't obvious. Liberals should be given a head start just to make this "fair".

Willis only has 3 kids. Travis has 11.

Agree. Facts can be a uniting factor but 80% of the population doesn't care, doesn't understand and/or believes much of the mis-information that is fed to them.

I'm in but only if there are at least 4 liberal players. Without at least a few willing to defend and support the liberal agenda, this just won't be an interesting play. Sign your ass up.

Have seen enough already. More than 100% increase in our premiums here over the past 3 years. More large increases coming and much of these increases directly attributable to the ACA with its' fees, taxes and mandated changes. Coverage options to an extent now being dictated to us. Rates have risen so high that some employees here may choose to go without and pay the fine next year. These are people who had been covered. As for the country as a whole, changing the rules for 90% of people to address an issue with 10% of the people is just dumb unless you are a politician who needs a steady supply of dependent voters to get elected. The issues with 10% of the population could have and should have been addressed more simply. NOBODY is going to pay lower premiums as a result of this new law unless they are being subsidized by the rest. Once again, Dems create dependency, debt and place a greater burden on the productive class and declare victory.