Gruden to the Alabama Coaching Rehab Clinic?

[dalmuti]

Just FYI Dalmuti is a troll. This his third user name this year. He was dantheman for a while and was banned. Just pointing that out he loves to argue lie about his escapades and push his agenda.

wrongo. im dalmuti now and always have been. check the logs, bub. yall need to quit with the fake news

[dalmuti]

The only people I know that think the left has good ideas are snowflakes that are offended by everyone that doesn't think just like them and want's them all canceled and people that want free lunches. I literally can't remember the last adult that I've spoken to that believed the left's economic, foreign relations, etc. ideas were good.

Well, I guess there are those that agree with the left on the abortion issue but that's a whole new discussion.

you must not talk to a lot of adults

[Extendedcab]

you must not talk to a lot of adults

Not your definition of an adult!

[OLJWales]

wrongo. im dalmuti now and always have been. check the logs, bub. yall need to quit with the fake news

Do you typically like bustin into parties uninvited just to a jerk people around?

[dalmuti]

Do you typically like bustin into parties uninvited just to a jerk people around?

Ihre Papiere, bitte?

[TUSK]

Do you typically like bustin into parties uninvited just to a jerk people around?

Yeah, that's my job, dammit!

[BeardoMSU]

Yeah, that's my job, dammit!

Dis u?**

[OLJWales]

Sometimes I can relate. Shiny assed stapler with no pay check

[dalmuti]

https://apnews.com/article/nfl-sport...source=Twitter

open and shut case, boys

[msstate7]

[OLJWales]

Would he consider Vegas? Sign that mutha.

[Tater]

The only people I know that think the left has good ideas are snowflakes that are offended by everyone that doesn't think just like them and want's them all canceled and people that want free lunches. I literally can't remember the last adult that I've spoken to that believed the left's economic, foreign relations, etc. ideas were good.

Well, I guess there are those that agree with the left on the abortion issue but that's a whole new discussion.

Glad you've been social distancing. It shouldn't be controversial to treat one another with respect and that if you work full time you should be able to have food, shelter, minimum basic needs met. But somehow that's already extremely leftist. On top of that, the thought that society should be geared towards collectively having people "work" and do things they don't want to do as little as possible, so they can, ya know, enjoy life. Somehow that's bad? It's leftist to want that instead of being mindless wage slaves in pursuit of pRoDuCtiViTy.

The policy of trickle down economics is one of the worst ever. Give a billionaire $1000 and it goes to an offshore tax haven. Give a poor person $1000 and it goes towards immediate food, rent, healthcare. Which one of those stimulates the economy? Why is it a bad idea to you that people are one hospital visit away from being ****ed with medical debt for life? If you told your grandparents that you were reading a fictitious book about an alternate reality of the US where housing costs more than 50% of income, college takes a lifetime to repay, families can barely make do with the mom working full time, we're locked in endless wars, and the government was paralyzed by crisis... they'd think in this book the US lost the Cold War. And then you drop the truth that that is society today for the majority.

So yea, until the right gets it's shit together on treating people like a decent human being, the left has good ideas. So what if that aligns me with LGBT+ or abortionists. Social issues take a back-burner until the right can believe in policies that treat people like decent human beings.

[Matt3467]

Glad you've been social distancing. It shouldn't be controversial to treat one another with respect and that if you work full time you should be able to have food, shelter, minimum basic needs met. But somehow that's already extremely leftist. On top of that, the thought that society should be geared towards collectively having people "work" and do things they don't want to do as little as possible, so they can, ya know, enjoy life. Somehow that's bad? It's leftist to want that instead of being mindless wage slaves in pursuit of pRoDuCtiViTy.

The policy of trickle down economics is one of the worst ever. Give a billionaire $1000 and it goes to an offshore tax haven. Give a poor person $1000 and it goes towards immediate food, rent, healthcare. Which one of those stimulates the economy? Why is it a bad idea to you that people are one hospital visit away from being ****ed with medical debt for life? If you told your grandparents that you were reading a fictitious book about an alternate reality of the US where housing costs more than 50% of income, college takes a lifetime to repay, families can barely make do with the mom working full time, we're locked in endless wars, and the government was paralyzed by crisis... they'd think in this book the US lost the Cold War. And then you drop the truth that that is society today for the majority.

So yea, until the right gets it's shit together on treating people like a decent human being, the left has good ideas. So what if that aligns me with LGBT+ or abortionists. Social issues take a back-burner until the right can believe in policies that treat people like decent human beings.

That's your perfect case scenario but I know many "poor" people that'll spend that on dope, air jordans, and other things they don't need. You can't paint one side with a broad brush and not the other.

[Tater]

That's your perfect case scenario but I know many "poor" people that'll spend that on dope, air jordans, and other things they don't need. You can't paint one side with a broad brush and not the other.

You say that shit like it's still not circulating back into the economy. Drug dealers gotta eat too. Foot Locker gotta pay the bills. You may not agree with where they send the money to on a micro level, but macro-economically speaking, they still stimulate the economy. So your "counterpoint" is not actually a counterpoint, it just makes my point stronger.

[TUSK]

You say that shit like it's still not circulating back into the economy. Drug dealers gotta eat too. Foot Locker gotta pay the bills. You may not agree with where they send the money to on a micro level, but macro-economically speaking, they still stimulate the economy. So your "counterpoint" is not actually a counterpoint, it just makes my point stronger.

100% correct. Not to mention the LEO dollars to catch a few, the DA dollars to prosecute a few of those.... then, just think of how many illegal handguns a grand will purchase to "bussa cap in dey ass, yo!"

bail bondsmen, undertakers, stats-cats to keep up with the slayin....

GD, that's a decent size segment of the populous....

[Johnson85]

Glad you've been social distancing. It shouldn't be controversial to treat one another with respect and that if you work full time you should be able to have food, shelter, minimum basic needs met. But somehow that's already extremely leftist.

That's not controversial. What's leftist is thinking that because you want something to be different, the way to make it different is to ignore reality.

On top of that, the thought that society should be geared towards collectively having people "work" and do things they don't want to do as little as possible, so they can, ya know, enjoy life. Somehow that's bad? It's leftist to want that instead of being mindless wage slaves in pursuit of pRoDuCtiViTy.

It's leftist to think that other people should have to work more so that some people can choose to work less. The amount of my time that has essentially been taken from me is bullshit. That said, I have had to pay a lot less in taxes than similarly situated colleagues because I decided to work less and earn less. It's ridiculous that they have to pay more taxes than me because I don't work as hard.

The policy of trickle down economics is one of the worst ever.

It's not the worst policy because it isn't a policy; it's a stupid slogan made up by people on the left.

Give a billionaire $1000 and it goes to an offshore tax haven. Give a poor person $1000 and it goes towards immediate food, rent, healthcare. Which one of those stimulates the economy?

Billionaires don't bury cash in the back yard. They tend to invest it, which also results in velocity of money. That said, it would be better if we didn't give money to billionaires (which we do a lot of, although not by not taxing them) and gave poor persons money in smarter ways that didn't discourage work and didn't result in high implicit marginal tax rates.

Why is it a bad idea to you that people are one hospital visit away from being ****ed with medical debt for life? If you told your grandparents that you were reading a fictitious book about an alternate reality of the US where housing costs more than 50% of income, college takes a lifetime to repay, families can barely make do with the mom working full time, we're locked in endless wars, and the government was paralyzed by crisis... they'd think in this book the US lost the Cold War. And then you drop the truth that that is society today for the majority.

The reason full time workers struggle is because of markets that have been destroyed by government intervention. Sometimes it has been bipartisan (housing), and sometimes it has been primarily driven by the left (healthcare and education). If we allowed markets to work in those areas, you wouldn't have full time workers struggling so much.

So yea, until the right gets it's shit together on treating people like a decent human being, the left has good ideas. So what if that aligns me with LGBT+ or abortionists. Social issues take a back-burner until the right can believe in policies that treat people like decent human beings.

The left doesn't like treating people like decent human beings. That's pretty obvious. There are certainly people on the left that advocate for a more generous social safety net, but that's not really what the left is about.

[Tater]

@ Johnson85

1. It is controversial. I can't tell you how many family members I've heard say incorrectly that "the minimum wage was not meant to be a livable wage." It's too damn many. The "reality ignoring" is an argument both sides use to belittle the other. I'll agree to not follow-up with where the conservative conglomerate does the same because we won't agree and that will ruin any potential positive discourse we can have. Deal?

2. This zero sum of work is a misinterpretation. Working shouldn't be a zero sum game. It's not saying that if there's 100 hrs of work need be done between two of us, that I only wanna do 40 and you gotta do 60. I'm questioning that if there really is 100 hrs of work to do.

Question for anyone to weigh in, how many meaningful hours do you put in at your office job? I'd say I'm effective for maybe 15-20 of the 45+ I'm in office. If need be I could get my work done in two 10 hour days for the week and then coast the next three days.

Taxes are not flat. If you make (numbers made up) $50k, you are taxed 25% on the first 40k and 40% on the next 10k. You aren't taxed a solid 40%. Hence tax returns. So being the guy who makes 40k and being in the "25%" tax bracket would in theory net you the same 30k that the 50k gets if they were flat taxed 40%; however, that's not how it's ever worked or it's proposed to work. That would be a bad system. The 50k guy gets 36k after taxes. The higher the income, the higher that bracket should be taxed isn't a controversial take. I guarantee you the average retail employee works harder than Jeff Bezos.

3. What do you call the 2008 Bank Bailouts if not Trickle-Down Economics? Yes it's origin was out of humor, but what should I call that ****ing disgrace of a policy then if not that?

4. We can just have a difference of opinion here because the velocity of money is better served flowing from the bottom upward in my estimation than from the top downward. Stipulating an economy is best done by the people having it change hands with one another, not by having high score chasers flick numbers on a screen. What ever you want to call that velocity of money you can combine into conversation 3/4. It's at its core not sending money through the everyday person's hand. Because how many of these investments are even American anymore.

5. Workers are destroyed because (see John Deere) we tied healthcare to employment and now actively let companies threaten our healthcare legally to keep working. We're too civilized of a nation to have this problem. Canada figured it out. Why can't we?

6. You can sell me on the left fetishizing certain creeds and races and treating them almost as trophies / pets. But that's low on the priority pole for what's important.

[Lord McBuckethead]

nevermind.

[Johnson85]

@ Johnson85

1. It is controversial. I can't tell you how many family members I've heard say incorrectly that "the minimum wage was not meant to be a livable wage." It's too damn many. The "reality ignoring" is an argument both sides use to belittle the other. I'll agree to not follow-up with where the conservative conglomerate does the same because we won't agree and that will ruin any potential positive discourse we can have. Deal?

The minimum wage likely would be a livable wage if we let housing, education, and healthcare markets operate. But beyond that, if an adult cannot generate enough value to make more than the minimum wage, the way to help them is not to make it illegal to employ workers below a certain productivity level. The cost of that approach falls on the most vulnerable workers. If you think they need help, help them by subsidizing their employment, not by reducing their job opportunities.

2. This zero sum of work is a misinterpretation. Working shouldn't be a zero sum game. It's not saying that if there's 100 hrs of work need be done between two of us, that I only wanna do 40 and you gotta do 60. I'm questioning that if there really is 100 hrs of work to do.

I don't know why you think zero sum has to do with anything. It doesn't matter how much work there is to do between us. It's ludicrous that the person choosing to do more should pay a higher tax rate. I'd say it's ludicrous that they have to pay more taxes period, but if you're going to tax income, I get that there is no good or fair way to do it (which is why it'd be better if we taxed consumption). But certainly, there are better and worse ways to do it, and it seems like a much worse way to do it to essentially take a greater percentage of people's time if they produce more value.

Question for anyone to weigh in, how many meaningful hours do you put in at your office job? I'd say I'm effective for maybe 15-20 of the 45+ I'm in office. If need be I could get my work done in two 10 hour days for the week and then coast the next three days.

Taxes are not flat. If you make (numbers made up) $50k, you are taxed 25% on the first 40k and 40% on the next 10k. You aren't taxed a solid 40%. Hence tax returns. So being the guy who makes 40k and being in the "25%" tax bracket would in theory net you the same 30k that the 50k gets if they were flat taxed 40%; however, that's not how it's ever worked or it's proposed to work. That would be a bad system. The 50k guy gets 36k after taxes. The higher the income, the higher that bracket should be taxed isn't a controversial take.

It is a controversial take. Plenty of people recognize that results in really shitty incentives. Plenty of people are ok with the bad incentives, but that doesn't mean that it's not controversial. If it's not controversial, then neither is a flat tax or VAT.

I guarantee you the average retail employee works harder than Jeff Bezos.

I seriously doubt the average retail employee has worked harder than Bezos over their respective careers. But regardless, we don't pay people for working hard. While that would be nice if we could and did do that, we mostly pay people for producing value. Luckily, there's a pretty decent correlation between working hard and producing value, hence my reference to similarly situated colleagues. But there are going to be people that work really, really hard and diligently at a task that just has limited productivity gains available (e.g., a hard working waiter may be able to work twice as many tables as the average waiter, but there is a limit to what they can do, and it's probably not going to produce as much value as the typical computer programmer.

3. What do you call the 2008 Bank Bailouts if not Trickle-Down Economics? Yes it's origin was out of humor, but what should I call that ****ing disgrace of a policy then if not that?

I would call it crony capitalism that creates moral hazard but possibly was a better policy for the short term..

4. We can just have a difference of opinion here because the velocity of money is better served flowing from the bottom upward in my estimation than from the top downward. Stipulating an economy is best done by the people having it change hands with one another, not by having high score chasers flick numbers on a screen. What ever you want to call that velocity of money you can combine into conversation 3/4. It's at its core not sending money through the everyday person's hand. Because how many of these investments are even American anymore.

How that money is invested across countries does matter. It wouldn't matter nearly as much if we didn't run insane deficits, as that money would have to be invested in something productive if it werent' for the constant new supply of government debt, but that doesn't go away just because you are giving money to a less affluent person. Plenty of stimulus money has gone to purchase TVs that have virtually zero American made inputs. Conversely, plenty of investment has gone into domestic capital projects that put a lot of money in the hands of less affluent US residents. It's not at all obvious that giving Chevron a $100M to invest in increasing refinery capacity in Pascagoula is going to result in less velocity within the US than giving $100M to low income people will. It's going to depend on how that money is spent.

5. Workers are destroyed because (see John Deere) we tied healthcare to employment and now actively let companies threaten our healthcare legally to keep working. We're too civilized of a nation to have this problem. Canada figured it out. Why can't we?

We tied health insurance to employment because of a stupid tax rule. One of an almost infinite number of examples of bad government policy begetting bad government policy. Canada made a decision they were willing to stop spending as much money on healthcare, even if it meant it would limit availability of care. We are not willing to make those tradeoffs, but are also not willing to allow a market to function (which would require people bear some costs of bad decisions), so we get mostly the worst of both worlds. There are other issues (e.g., we also subsidize drug development for other rich countries because we don't utilize government market power to reduce drug costs), but the main issue is that we won't let markets work but if you don't let markets work and set up a cartel that can control a necessary good, you are going to have to do cost controls or you will see the cartels charging as much as people can bear.

6. You can sell me on the left fetishizing certain creeds and races and treating them almost as trophies / pets. But that's low on the priority pole for what's important.

I'm not talking about fetishizing certain creeds or races or anything. I'm just talking about generally treating people like shit if they have the power to do so.