JuanGuzman
-
Posts
497 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by JuanGuzman
-
-
Anyone Remember this guy, Spiller Vintage Year 2012-13:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/QpLIDa2FdTA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Edit: I can’t figure out to embed the video cause I’m a moron. But here is the youtube link: https://www.youtube....h?v=QpLIDa2FdTA
The biggest differencet I noticed between 2012 and 2014 is the offensive sets/formations. In 2012 the Bills ran a lot of single back sets, with Spiller set deep in the backfield. Basically the philosophy was spread them out and let Spiller gash. This took advantage of Spiller’s strengths, acceleration and the ability to make people miss in space. You also see a lot of screens played called.
Fast forward to 2014, and the offensive ground game look like a clogged toilet. You see a lot of power sets run to the weak side of the field, with a lead block back. This hasn’t hurt Fred Jackson who runs with excellent body lean and excels at getting those “Tough Yards”
But CJ Spiller the play calling is a disastrous use of skill sets. Look Spiller has faults, number one I think is his is below average vision, number 2 as an RB and two he is never going to move the pile. He needs an offense designed to avoid the pile, put him in “one on one” situations and let him make the guy in front miss.
*I am posting this as a new topic in the hopes the Nathaniel Hackett cruises this forum under the pseudonym “Can’t_Hackett”*
-
My biggest concern with EJ was the sixty sacks he took in two years. It suggested a lack of awareness. In his limited playing time last year, I saw nothing to refute it. I will be rooting hard for him to succeed but im guessing we will have a different qb come 2015 or at least hoping for one.
-
I didn't realize the giants had already cut Josh Freeman. What happened to that guy...? He looked like he might be a star in the league a few years back
-
I live in British Columbia. In 2008, the province instituted a carbon tax with a corresponding cut in income taxes. This made the tax "revenue neutral" so the governments total tax take remained the same. Although there was a transfer of wealth among citizens as people who were more depended automobile use (rural residents) paid slightly more tax, where as urban dwellers who used less gasoline and had some alternative transit options available earned some tax savings.
Generally the Carbon Tax appears to be a success. It's estimated that B.C's GHG emissions have been reduced by 19% per capita, but the provinces GDP has kept pace with the rest of Canada.
I don't believe taking action to reduce GHG emissions will be that costly economically. And if we are concerned that the human generated climate could render parts of the planet uninhabitable 100 years from now that it seems like taking action to reduce GHGs makes sense, if the economic costs are small. That being said, given global industrial growth its hard to imagine that reducing of GHG's in Canada and U.S. would do much to slow the pace carbon emissions.
-
And you rarely post.
Coincidence?
You still don't think Obama Care is going to work?
-
Trumps a blowhard, he tries to attach his name to anything, I am hoping this is just more hot air coming from him, I would not like to have him as the bills owner.
-
WASHINGTON — The Census Bureau, the authoritative source of health insurance data for more than three decades, is changing its annual survey so thoroughly that it will be difficult to measure the effects of President Obama’s health care law in the next report, due this fall, census officials said.
The changes are intended to improve the accuracy of the survey, being conducted this month in interviews with tens of thousands of households around the country. But the new questions are so different that the findings will not be comparable, the officials said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/us/politics/census-survey-revisions-mask-health-law-effects.html'>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/us/politics/census-survey-revisions-mask-health-law-effects.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/us/politics/census-survey-revisions-mask-health-law-effects.html
I normally post positive Obamacare stories since i believe the policy is much better than the status quo, but I thought I would post a negative story. This is disappointing, i hope its purely a coincidence, but the fact the new data won't be comparable to the old and that will overstate obamacares impact is concerning.
There are ways out there to measure the data but I still dislike this change,
-
Despite Healthcare.gov's botched rollout, federal budget forecasters now expect Obamacare's insurance exchanges to cover slightly more people with less money.
The Congressional Budget Office now estimates that 25 million people will gain insurance through the new marketplaces over the next decade. That's an increase from 24 million, the agency's last projection.
But here's what's most surprising: CBO thinks that, even as the exchanges insure slightly more people, the overall price tag for everyone goes down. It now expects the federal government to spend $104 billion less on the coverage expansion.
CBO's new forecasts reflect the fact that premiums on the exchange have come in slightly lower than initially expected. The ones being sold this year tend to pay doctors less and have "narrower networks of providers." When health plans contract with fewer doctors, they typically can negotiate cheaper prices with the few physicians they do include in their networks.
When premiums are lower, that means the federal government pays less to subsidize people buying insurance. CBO says the federal government is, on average, spending $300 less per person on insurance subsidies than it had expected.
ttp://www.vox.com/2014/4/14/5613346/obamacares-price-tag-just-got-cut-by-104-billion
-
How many of those 7 million previously had insurance but lost it because of ObamaCare?
Right now the estimate is: "Using a survey fielded by the RAND American Life Panel, we estimate a net gain of 9.3 million in the number of American adults with health insurance coverage from September 2013 to mid-March 2014." - http://www.rand.org/blog/2014/04/survey-estimates-net-gain-of-9-3-million-american-adults.html
-
You keep repeating this, as if that will rationalize your argument.
It WAS politicized...................on September 11, 2012........................THAT was shameful
Your blanket condemnation of the GOP for trying to get the whole story out (since 2012..........long before 2016 considerations) is also shameful.
.
What is the whole story in your opinion?
-
It wasn't the end of the world when it's happened in the past, now was it?
I think you're splitting hairs here. I meant that it may not be the end of the world for humanity, although it very well could be. Anyway I recommended the video cause I thought it was a good take on the issue. I didn't see any flaws or holes in the presenters logic. But I'd welcome a critical review on it if someone watched. Part of the climate change inertia I think we see in society is because no one wants to think seriously about these issues. Here on the other hand is a very serious look at the issue. I urge people to watch it.
Anyway, if people don't want to watch it. Can you at least summarize the consensus view from those opposed to action on climate change?
- Is it climate change doesn't exists, its a big conspiracy?
- Is it climate change does exist but we don't need to do anything about it, we'll muddle our way through it when we start seeing consequences?
- Or is it climate change does exist, and while we should in theory do something about it, government is incapable of doing. Why trust them with our tax dollars?
- Is it climate change doesn't exists, its a big conspiracy?
-
So, let me get this straight, you want us to watch a 45 minute video with the obviously biased covers in order to see your point? All this, after your previous posting record? Ha, even Gator isn't stupid enough to ask us to do this.
Yeh I'd just ask you to watch it. Its not some crackpot, it's a world class scientist reviewing the evidence for man made change. I think he makes a convincing case. Granted a warmer planet my not be the end of the world, also maybe there are adaptation measures that are possible like using SO2 to cool the planet etc.
But I don't think its unrealistic to ask for a revenue neutral carbon taxes. We would reduce income tax and compensate for that revenue loss with a carbon tax. it would also be great if we eliminated any subsidies to fossil fuel producers IMO. Those policies would reduce our carbon footprint and actually might be good for the economy.
E.g., why not tax something bad like carbon, and reduce tax on something good (peoples labour)
-
IF people can take time out of their day and comment on this video I would appreciate. I think it's a great 45 minute lecture on some of the science and politics of climate change.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/9CKNHpVUJKk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
-
I'll always be a Bills fan but its painful to see the organization frequentely mis-manage assets. Byrd's the best safety we've had in a long time. The franchise tag would seemingly give us enough leverage to sign him long term. Yet the F.O. is incapable of achieving it. Not sure if its because they're cheap or incompetent but god damn good organizations seem to retain their best young players.
-
I am eligible, however, I have fewer needs than the vast majority of those who served more recently than my service, so I don't claim them out of respect.
thanks for the info. I'm always interested to hear about peoples experience with the VA care. It used to be terrible, sounds like it's now some of the best health care you can get in the U.S. although I understand that influx of vets coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq has posed some significant challenges.
-
NO. Besides that the quality will be less and it will be more expensive. In addition, taxes on the wealthiest Americans, will go up.
I graded you, red = wrong, Bold is my text, and Green = right. You got the first three wrong - the first one is obviously wrong more people will be insured every credible source says so. The other two are debatable but quality will go up (minimum standards duh!) and health costs will slow down not speed up (its already happened http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/healthcostreport_final_noembargo_v2.pdf. I'll give you partial credit for the last one..
Spare me your liberal response about supporting "those less fortunate and underserved" as my time in the military as well as a thirty-five year career in public education put paid to a lot of that from my address.
out of curiosity are you eligible for VA Care?
Also guys feel free to point out where/when it was that ObamaCare caused forced people into involuntary part-time work:
-
Since I answered you. How you answer me one question. Its a simple yes or no... here it goes will more total Americans have health insurance as a result of Obamacare?
I see no one has responded to my question?
-
I understand the the president is bound by law. but i also understand there is reason executive discretion, to allow for flexibility. I have no doubt Obama will faithfully execute provisions in Affordable Care Act.
-
JuanGuzman:
I've noted that you've not responded to my posts.
Sorry you guys just toss so many balls in the air for me too shoot em all down, some get lost in fray.
here is my response:
First, in short I think the role of government is to deliver better outcomes for it citizens, in some instances that means ensuring free unfettered markets, in others it means providing goods and services like national defense, other times it means imposing rules and regulations to deliver a more efficient outcome. So I don't see it as a perversion of government.
Second, I don't buy your premise that republicans don't want it both ways..... I think tehy'll argue anything, with no regard for logic, as long as it erodes ACA. I actually think they willfully cause harm to America by putting their preference to see Obama fail over the interest of American citizens. Debt ceiling b.s. being a prime example.
Finally, I also don't believe that Obama exercising executive discretion is the final nail in the coffin for Constitutional government and the separation of powers.
Here are the stats on executive order:
http://www.yourhoust...8ca6a5b175.htmlSo what if the President does executive orders! Did not prior presidents do the same thing? Yes and no! George Washington did 8, John Adams 1, Thomas Jefferson 4, James Madison 1, James Monroe 1, John Quincy Adams 3, and Andrew Jackson 12. The first seven presidents totaled 30 executive orders over forty-seven years. The most recent seven presidents Barack Obama 168, George W. Bush 291, William J. Clinton 364, George Bush 166, Ronald Reagan 381, Jimmy Carter 320, and Gerald R. Ford 169 totaled 1,859, over forty years — sixty-two times as many. Obviously something has radically changed.Since I answered you. How you answer me one question. Its a simple yes or no... here it goes will more total Americans have health insurance as a result of Obamacare?
-
The individual mandate still applies to most people, the whole point of it is to get people to sign up, if you made it so that the individual mandate didn't apply (Republican Proposal) than the healthy will take their sweet time signing up thereby screwing up the insurance risk pools . The individual mandates has been postponed for people who've had their insurance policies cancelled because of Obamacare standard requirements.
This is a transitory effects and its degree was unanticipated. Making concessions to those who lost insurance their makes perfect sense, but if you extend relief from the individual mandate to whole population than you don't get the widespread adoption of health insurance that you need for it to work.
-
Karma's a B word ain't it?
Note the bolded above and figure out what you did wrong. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. (like you did with jboyst)
Thanks, I feel like I can relax now. I'm confident that i am winning the debate when you guys spend your time reviewing my posts for common grammar typos.
-
He's even taken it to the point where when the Republican Congress has suggested changes to the law (delaying the individual mandate by a year), he told Congress he'd veto such legislation...then administratively delayed the individual mandate by a year in violation of the law.
Once again you're only telling one half of the story, the side that suits you. On congress suggested changes, the other half was the companion piece would have prevented the individual mandate from functioning. The individual mandate is the guts of the health insurance, its why health reform worked in Massachusetts under governor Romney, and delaying it for a year would of doomed ACA. why do you think the Repubs suggested it???
You guy's always want to have it both ways, it sickens me... you cry like babies when Obamacare cancels insurance policies that don't meet its requirements (Fine I too think its scary that some people who had bare minimum insurance might not have any insurance due to obamacare) But you complain Oh No Obama's not following the rules game when he allows people more time to get an insurance plan that meets ACA standards.
There is no logic to it, It's just blinding ideology. Lets stop pretending where having a debate on the merits of ObamaCare
Most of the crew in PPP simply don't want it, so they'll latch onto any argument no matter how contrived, how convoluted and argue the point. Me myself I'm evidenced based and I note that ACA has real costs, it also has real benefits. The Benefits outweigh the costs so lets fire this baby up, and get Affordable care going in America.
-
Further, to your point that the President wouldn't have been able to acheive his "reforms" if he had to wait for Congress? So what? That's how the United States Government works, by design. It's the entire purpose of our Congress.
I'm no legal scholar but I agree with that politicians should follow the rules of land. Politics is murky though, whether the reforms meet the principle of executive discretion or not, I'll leave that up to legal scholars. The point is he wouldn't have been able to achieve the health reforms he wanted in congress so he sidestepped congress.
Just like many presidents have done in the past and many presidents will do in the future. that's how business gets done.
-
Well Juan, now you've gone and done it. I'm going to refute you and rebuke your ascertation. You've not only stepped in it but you've made it possible for me to say "game, set, match". If you had actually followed things you might have chosen not to make the statement above.
http://hotair.com/gr...one-on-our-own/
"President Obama would veto a House bill aimed at legally delaying the employer mandate for a year, the White House announced on Tuesday,even though his administration has already issued a regulation embracing the delay. On July 2, the Department of Treasury announced it would delay until 2015 a provision of Obamacare that requires larger employers to provide acceptable health insurance or pay a penalty. But it wasn’t clear that the administration had the legal authority to do so, as the text of Obamacare states that the mandate, “shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.” Thus, Republicans have introduced a bill in the House to codify into law the delay that Obama already supports. They have also proposed legislation that would extend the same delay to individuals required to purchase government-approved health insurance or pay a tax."
BaHAHAHAAHAH do you really you think Obama would be able to achieve the reforms in congress that he has implemented through executive discretion? haha if true you are just as out to lunch as congress.
Anyway the the key point your missing is the companion piece to that bill meant that people who don't buy insurance wouldn't be taxed. The whole point of this bill is the insurance market only functions when there are adequate risk pools, that means healthy and sick need to sign up a like. (Yes that means some young people are unfairly taxed but that cost is needed to have the benefits of a functioning insurance market) Removing the tax would of destroyed legislation.
This is the problem with negotiating with the republican congress, they attach unholy conditions to legislation, even if said legislation that helps America. These attached conditions do more harm than good and put the president in a impossible position to help americans. The only people that are helped out the politicians who use the media coverage chance to raise a war chest for the next election
Bills OL coach Aaron Kromer arrested (Suspended 6 games)
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
I hope we manage to keep Kromer through some combination of 4 game suspension followed by a demotion to assistant O-line coach for the remainder of the year (promote the current assistant). The articles I have read this preseason have contained nice quotes about Kromer and his ability to teach and emphasize technique. Bills players seem happy with him and Kromer has had success previously so I hope we can hang on to him.
That being said, the NFL's crackdown on personal conduct does not bode well for Kromer. An O-Line coach is the definition of expendable and the image conscious league may decide to make an example out him. Not to mention the whole Incognito factor.