MattM

In theory (need to see it in games obviously), our D Line presents similar matchup problems to those described above about the Pats*' receivers/TE's, namely, who do you leave undoubled among Dareus, K Dub, M Dub and even Mark Anderson and Merriman should he return to form? You can only double up on one of them without keeping a TE or RB in to block, thereby taking someone out of the pattern, leaving 7 defenders on 4 receivers....

Maybe not this year, but that day will indeed come and then you can go back to rooting for the 'Boys or the Stillers or whoever the hot team is at that moment. If it's us, then you might out of luck, unless of course you change your user name and create another "fan identity" like so many other frontrunners do....

Divisional rivalries are always like that--Browns fans hate the Stillers, too--but there is no "League-wide" hate for any of those teams like there is for the 'Boys or the Pats*. I think you're giving too much credit to context and success, which admittedly plays a part (there'd be less attention otherwise), but not as big a part as you think, IMHO....

Were those "other guys" the Garrett brothers? All of them were at Princeton (after a Columbia stint before their dad got canned) around that time....

I agree to some extent, but not entirely. For ex., the Stillers Packers and Giants are all very successful franchises yet engender nowhere near the hate. Some of the hate is the fault of the teams you listed. The Yankees buy championships, Duke is for snooty, rich kid front-runners, and the Pats*, well, where does one start....

And with that, gents, I bid you good night--off to pack. Heading "home" tomorrow with the kids to see (among other things) Bills camp (you remember them? The reason for this website--tend to wear red, white and blue and find ways to blow great early season starts?).....

Show me where I "equate" the two? "Idiot"--hey ,guys, at least I admit my mistakes. I thought about simply erasing that quote, but you know what, why not just roll with it....

Are you referring to the Valerie Plame scandal (oh, wait, no, she was a field agent--even worse), which was proven in a court of law to have been tied to the Office of the Vice President of the US? As I've said elsewhere, on the others follow the trail on that one where it leads--it's early days in the investigation. If there's something bad at the end of the trail let the chips fall where they may....

Did I just hear correctly? Did I just hear Mitt claim to have grown up poor??!!! Oh, my What a friggin' joke..... Oops--my bad, he was talking about Rubio (I came into the room late)....

Read the article--apparently it's "not done" in Britain. When traveling abroad, particularly on a "foreign policy trip", it pays to know and understand the local lay of the land, no? And the other papers also mentioned in the article? The Guardian was not the only one attacking him--sounds like it was all of them (Daily Telegraph, Times of London included).....

It's really hysterical that you accuse everyone you come across of having "narrow" views--riddle me this, do you know how I vote? Question for you--have you ever voted for a Democrat? I noted yesterday in that thread that the OECD study you cited as definitive on progressivity stopped measuring at the decile level (as even the article on it you cited noted!), while others have shown that the US system is indeed progressive--that is until you get to the very top (sub-1%). The LA Times article I cited and the Hacker/Pierson quote (found on page 48 of their book, BTW) both discuss that and show how our progressivity doesn't make it to when you hit the heights for reasons Hacker & Pierson go into at length in their book (short version--the rich have bought off both parties to lower their taxes and otherwise tilt the system in their favor--I just saved you 300 pages and $25). All this despite the fact that I was a good sport and played along when you brought up the non-sequitur of progressivity of our tax code in response to my comment on absolute rates for the rich being the lowest in ages. I then asked a simple question--any evidence in that study or anything else you linked to that would prove your implied point that the system is indeed progressive all the way to the top and not merely when breaking our income strata up into 10% increments? (BTW, I don't need a lesson on cap gains vs. ordinary income--I know all about that. A quick comparative review of cap gains rates one can find on Wikipedia or otherwise will show that the US is among the lower rate countries there, too, in the developed world.) I got an answer saying you weren't going to answer after that. Now I get what you wrote above, which again isn't on point, which is why I was laughing at that post last night. Now we're all caught up.....

Not an auspicious start for the Mitt-ster: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/79035.html Or how about my favorite: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/79036.html Wow--not exactly looking like Presidential timber so far.... PS All of you "leak" fans must love that MI6 one!

The connection's part's a given....

There are firms that are more interested in hiring someone because of their school's name and/or class rank than their ability to actually practice law. Ding, ding, ding---"and we have a winner, folks!", particularly big firms. In a bad economy they use school as a proxy for competence.....

Maybe Obama learned from Mitt that diners can be dangerous places--anyone else remember Romney's encounter with a gay Vietnam vet in a NH diner? The one who grilled him on same sex marriage after Mitt thought he was "friendly" because he was an older white vet? The one who told the reporters after the meeting that he'd had a good long look at Mitt up close and his verdict was "that man isn't ready to be President"? In fairness to Mitt, I thought myself that that guy was a Gingrich plant....

To answer your first question--yes, because I pointed out what was wrong in your argument based on those links (which themselves dissembled from my original point that you were seeking to refute, that of it now being the best time in about 60 plus years to be a wealthy American from a tax perspective) and you had no response to that. Simple question--got any data to show that our tax system is progressive all the way at the top and not simply based on deciles? Your link talked in deciles, as the author himself admitted. I linked to two sources for my point. As for point 2 re leaks--believe it or not I can handle thinking about two issues at once (three on good days), but no matter. Let's see where the investigation goes before declaring victory, shall we, after all, it's early days on that. Maybe you'll be right and this WH will turn out to be as devious as the last (remember your good buddy Scooter Libby?)....

Sound familiar, WorldTraveler? Still ROFLMFAO all these hours later....

So, I take it you've got nothing, then, considering my question to you was pretty specific? Best I could tell, you seemed to be directing me back to a 290 page text (that one needs to buy to get in usable form, BTW) and asked me to do your homework for you, as that was apparently what you were relying on to make your argument yet you can't direct me to any specific part that makes your fairly concise point? Typical--just keep changing the subject and making smart aleck remarks when you're stumped or come to the end of your logic line. The "sunshine" part is especially cute. ROFLMFAO, as the kids say.....

"I know you are, but what am I?". What a juvenile response. I'm also still waiting for an answer as to why I was wrong on granularity in the tax thread....

My buddy considered the rollover idea, but still wasn't sure how you could get so much money into a tax deferred account without gaming the system somehow (at least on initial valuation). BTW, my tax friend is not particularly political, but merely a tax wonk.....

Once again when faced with an unpleasant truth you simply change the subject. That dog really don't hunt. On the leak point, it's kind of rich that one of Romney's chief campaigners pushing that point, Eric Edelman, was himself implicated in the Valerie Plame outing--remember that? How's that for hypocrisy?

I was talking socially to a tax partner at a big NY law firm last week and he was wondering the same thing....

Exactly--like one in about ten to boot.....

Where, as what you linked was quite voluminous? The OECD report stopped at deciles, for ex. And many thanks for the change in tone!

I've taken a look at the stuff you cited above and before I address it, must note that it really doesn't address the point I originally made and that you responded to, which is that there's been no better time to be rich in recent American history (as measured in decades) from a tax perspective. Nothing you cited here goes to that at all, as best I can tell. Instead you focus on either comparative progressivity or how much of the total the rich pay. In fact, in the Frank piece, Robert Frank acknowledges that taxes for the rich have never been lower. That said, here goes: 1. The argument in Crook's piece (which links on a study using deciles and a confusing, imperfect cross-country comparison to begin with) isn't granular enough as he himself acknowledges: "What happens to tax progressivity at the very top of the US income distribution--inside the top one percent, or 0.1 or 0.01 percent? Good question. When it comes to international comparisons, I don't know of any good answers. But note that the US isn't the only country to tax capital at preferential rates." The article I quoted from the LA times yesterday shows what happens up the income scale in the US--overall rates go down to 19.9% at the very top (top 400 returns). Others I believe have shown the same thing with less granularity than the Top 400, again all largely due to capital gains treatment. I was curious to see cap gains rates across jurisdictions, so I checked Wikipedia among other sources--looked to me like the US rate is fairly low, particularly for developed democracies. On ordinary income, from personal experience I know that many jurisdictions have much higher top marginal rates than the US, so I'm not too sure how this study worked, although the unfortunately named Mr. Crook hinted at it in his article--the low rates of income tax paid by folks down the income scale in the US. This is all consistent with what I wrote way above--we have progressivity until the very top. This also noted by Hacker & Pierson in their book, which I also noted above. To quote them at more length: "The federal tax code is still progressive overall. But what used to be a key feature of the code--its steep progressivity at the very top income levels--has simply disappeared. The richest of the rich now pay about the same overall rate as those who are merely rich. Indeed, though figure one doesn't show this, the uppoer middles class--families in the top 10 or 20%--are paying an avg. federal tax rate not much lower than that paid by the superrich." [Personally, I'd argue they pay more based on the LA Times article.] This is a pattern we will see again and again: dramatic benefits for the rich that are so precisely targeted that they are only visible when we put that tiny slice of Americans [you know, those guys starting the Super PACS, but they're just doing that out of the goodness of their hearts, right?] under our economic microscope. It is as if the govt had developed the economic policy equivalent of smart bombs, except these bombs carry payloads of cash for their carefully selected recipients." 2. On the Frank article, Frank also acknowledges that tax rates paid by the rich are at an all-time low as noted above, which actually supports my original point. (FYI, before he got his CNBC gig I used to see him at the gym at lunchtime--without talking much to him he seems like a good guy--he at least lets you work in and share weight equipment!) 3. I'm steering clear of your last link, since that's taking us further afield of my original points, and I only have so much time to waste today. As I've argued with conservative friends on these points (who usually point to the facts re: how much of the income tax liabilities the rich pay as a total percentage), both sets of facts can be "right" on some of these points--i.e., the wealthy's rates can be at all time lows and due to shifts elsewhere in the Code they can also pay large percentages of the total income tax. BTW, WT, what is your interest in the Bills, as you seem to have shown up recently and basically simply post in PPP, which I usually avoid like the plague because it ends up in long threads like this one which don't solve anything or change anyone's mind.....