jjamie12
-
Posts
622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jjamie12
-
-
"This isn't how responsible families do their budgets. When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. "
His premise about "responsible families" is fraught with hypocrisy. While it's true to your point that he wasn't lecturing "responsible families" he was lecturing congress as the all knowing professor. As if he knows the struggles of everyday Americans. What part of this being the greatest economically tough times in American history since the Great Depression does this man not get? Because it's not his money that he's spending, it's ok to fly in celebrity chefs because of his high-end appetite? It's hard to imagine but in just one year this president has become a much bigger joke than Bush ever was, and given the results of the last three big elections in this country, it's clear that the America has finally had their "fill" of Obama and his high-end appetite.
What, specifically, in his quote do you disagree with? Do you think Congress is/has been acting responsibly? Why aren't you standing up and applauding him for this, rather than complaining about it?
-
The Vegas jab was anecdotal to the main point of Obama being an unashamed hypocrite by lecturing Americans about how they should manage their money more responsibly. I thought my point was made crystal clear.
Just for the record: President Obama was saying that the GOVERNMENT needs to act more responsibly. Read the quote again. He wasn't lecturing anyone except Washington.
-
Don't put words in mouth because your ignorant. I'm saying he allows these things to happen. ...
God works the same exact way. He cannot bless America and Haiti exactly the same. We are (or were) a Christian nation, god blessed us, Haiti isn't they aren't as blessed.
You understand that natural disasters happen in the US, and to Christians, right?
But, let's go with this anyway; don't want to put words in your mouth. So... your God "allows" children to starve because years and years ago their ancestors decided to believe in something other than Christ?
Which church to you go to, again?
-
It's a difficult concept to swallow, just because It sounds completely backwards. But God always makes sense of his ways, which are usually foreign to the way we think.
Haiti is a corrupt nation. If God blessed them the same as he does the United States which is by in large a Christian nation, then God would be a liar.
We have given them millions upon millions of dollars and their Government stops the money from getting to the people. The sooner that nation turns to God the sooner they will be blessed. The start of it is admitting what you've done, thanking God for his justice that you deserved, and then he will bless you.
He literally can't bless a nation just by default because he's God. He has to punish, to not be a total contradiction.
No different than if I did the right thing and my brother did the wrong thing, and my Dad gave both of us our allowance and treated us both exactly the same. What the heck, I came home on time, I did my homework, I mowed the lawn. He goes and does what he wants and gets caught stealing and there's no consequence?
So, just so I get this right: Your God (on purpose, with menace) starves children?
Which church do you go to?
-
Exactly. It is a reflection of character and character matters. Same as a driving record which is also used often as a screening tool.
It really is not. These two things are not even remotely the same. Please do some research on this for your own information; I think you will change your mind (somewhat) if/when you find out how a credit score is actually derived.
-
Won't matter. If the law passes, then it will only ensnare them for one taxable period. By next year, all these shops will reorganize to make sure that all distributions are capital gains. Or worse, they'll structure transactions as all stock deals to avoid taxation altogether.
And this is, of course, absolutely true.
So: Government does something, it sounds good, people love them ("yay populism!!!!!11!!!"). Nothing actually really changes... Sound about right?
-
The only plausible rationale is that because private equity firms & VCs are actively involved in running the portfolio companies, all income derived from those business should be treated as ordinary. That makes sense. What doesn't is that carried interest applies to when the business is sold, which has always been deemed as a capital transaction not ordinary course.
But, since we are in the era of made up rules of the week, nothing to see here, move along.
Wait a second, though. The way that I understand Carried Interest is that it is essentially their 'bonus' on top of their management fee, no?
-
Carried Interest taxed as Ordinary Income
I don't find the arguments against this to be very persuasive. Of course the income derived from this is 'no sure thing'. Same as any end of year bonus, and those are taxed...
The only thing I can think of is possible hurdle rates on potential investments being higher?
Thoughts?
-
This editorial seems to be right.
Most relevant piece (in my mind):
CBO found that premiums in the individual market will rise by 10% to 13% more than if Congress did nothing. Family policies under the status quo are projected to cost $13,100 on average, but under ObamaCare will jump to $15,200.CBO is confirming that new coverage mandates will drive premiums higher. But Democrats are declaring victory, claiming that these higher insurance prices don't count because they will be offset by new government subsidies. About 57% of the people who buy insurance through the bill's new "exchanges" that will supplant today's individual market will qualify for subsidies that cover about two-thirds of the total premium.So the bill will increase costs but it will then disguise those costs by transferring them to taxpayers from individuals. Higher costs can be conjured away because they're suddenly on the government balance sheet.
This seems to run parallel to the work that Magox has done on this. KTFABD -- Can you comment on why you believe this not to be the case? It really seems to me that this bill did (will do) the opposite of its intention. Namely, it will actually INCREASE costs of insurance, not decrease them, but it will appear to be cheaper for some because taxpayers will be footing a large chunk of the bill. Are you in agreement with that?
-
Agreed.FCS (former I-AA) playoff begins Nov. 28, with championship game on Dec. 18. But of course, any FBS playoffs would run afoul of the big money behind the conference championshp games and the bowl system, so we can't have that.I understand your larger point, Lori, but here is something to consider, as well:
I took a quick glance thru the Top 25 of FCS and their schedules. The only Thursday game I saw was Temple-Villanova on 9/3. Everyone else played on Saturdays. No Tuesday games, no Thursday games, no Friday games. Saturdays. All of them. In addition, those Saturday games are usually played (relatively) locally. I would be very surprised if these teams did anything other than leave on a bus late Friday afternoon, stay over Friday night and be back on campus on Saturday night. These guys don't miss class (maybe the rare late friday afternoon class) for football, unlike just about every single FBS school.
-
That's a problem.You 2 are laughably pathetic. Like the NCAA and institutions care about the "student" athletes.
Football players don't need to study? How can you take your English Lit final on Thursday, or your Calc I Final on Friday when you're playing Friday night in Las Vegas or wherever the playoff game is held?And, for what its worth, finals usually occupy a grand total of 1 week in december. Don't give me any crap about these guys needing to study.
That's a problem.If the NCAA cares so much about the "student" athletes, please explain why Div I baseball had its season shortened time wise (same # of games over a shorter time frame) so most ball teams play 5 games in a week.
I do. And it's a problem.Also please explain why no one complains about the "student" athletes in NCAA basketball who may be out of class from wednesday to sunday for 4 consecutive weeks for the conference tournaments and the NCAA tourney.
All of that is a problem. And all of that is EXACTLY why I would be against making it any harder on these guys as 'student-athletes' (such as they are).There are some arguments for not having a playoff, but the "student" athlete argument is one of the shallowest and most laughable out there. If the NCAA actually cared, they'd make these guys go to class and they'd attempt to do something concerning the fact that the majority of major programs graduate less than 40% of their "student" athletes.You 2 are laughably pathetic.You know what, Ramius? I met you in 2005 in Tallahassee at the Bills Backer bar down there. We sat at the same table and watched the Steelers-Bills game in Week 17 (when we couldn't beat their backups). We had a nice time there, you told me about your PhD work (biology? microbiology? Something like that, right?), about how hot the FSU girls were, yada, yada, yada. If there's one thing I'm sure of it is this: You would never, in a million years call me (or anyone, for that matter) 'laughably pathetic' to their face. That's not your style. Save the internet tough guy routine, OK? It doesn't suit you.
-
Can't help but notice that not a single person in this thread opining that there should be a 16 or 24 team playoff has mentioned anything about the players. Like how four more weeks of football games starting in December affects the kids' ability to take finals, for example.
Or why those same kids should risk injury (and subsequent paydays) four more times a year just so people can B word about which teams got screwed out of the 'playoff' instead of getting screwed out of the BCS.
-
No. Because the Obama Administration thinks they're not bound by federal law.
(Seriously, that was their argument in court. FISA doesn't apply, because the White House doesn't fall under jurisdiction of federal law.)
I don't remember all the details, but wasn't that essentially the Bush Administration's argument, as well?
-
It's a question of most people being convinced that the solution to "big government" is "more big government, but for MY side of the aisle." Wait 4-12 years, and watch the Republicans start passing nonsense increasing their power, to make up for the power the Democrats are now giving themselves (in response to the power the Republicans granted themselves 6-8 years ago...)
And to a significant degree, it's less a political dynamic than it is a bureaucratic one. It is very much in the nature of bureaucracy to grow beyond a point where it serves any useful purpose, and then become self-justifying and very hard to dismantle. DHS is a good example.
Agree completely with the first paragraph.
Hadn't thought about it as a bureaucratic dynamic vs. political, but that certainly makes sense when you think about the fact that projects get done because there's 'extra money' this year, and if you don't use it, you'll lose it for next year...
-
The most salient point (imo):
Furthermore, when extending federal authority, the Obama folks never seem to ask how Republicans will use this power when they regain the White House. The Democrats trust themselves to set private-sector salaries and use extralegal means to go after malefactors, but would they trust a future Dick Cheney?Has any Democrat stopped to ask themselves this very important question?
I realize that this board isn't a big "I'm smart enough to understand that there are things I don't know" place (nor is it meant to be... it's not a philosophy board, afterall) but:
This is a thought-provoking piece from a: 'Wait a tick, we won't ALWAYS be in power' perspective, and that is certainly political in nature...
-
The "facts" in the blog are completely and totally made up. These companies are taking advantage of the perceived neutrality of blogs.
It astounds me that people who make decisions, in any capacity, would look at a blog and go "Wow. I guess I shouldn't buy that product." without doing any other research. People are insane.
-
You're asking an unanswerable question about the an individual role in a dynamic organization. You want a general conclusion to a hypothesis about an individual's title in a particular field of organizations and why changes are made in that position even though the individuals are unique and the organizational situations are diverse. Your question is the equivalent of "Why do corporations fire executive staff?" or "Why is there turnover amongst finish carpenters?"
No. I'm (quite literally) asking for the reasons behind the action: How does a 'good' coach become a coach who deserves to be fired? Literally, how does it happen? I only see a few possibilities:
1- Coaches 'slump'
2- Specific coaches work well with only specific teams
3- Talent level overwhelms coaching 'ability'
4- Some combination of 1 and 2. (If talent level overwhelms coaching ability, then 3, by definition, isn't lumped in with 1 and 2.)
-
Gruden, Shanahan, Cowher, Holmgren, Dungy, etc. have all shown that they can win in this league and win championships. And, to put Dick Jauron's name right back in to the conversation, Jauron hasn't shown he can win in this league -- he's more than a season under .500 lifetime, and has never won a playoff game and only coached in 1 of them in 8 years, a blowout.
Why do coaches move around? Might just as well ask why so many players move around the NFL in free agency, etc. Free agency doesn't mean the player can't play any more than the coach can't coach. There are any number of reasons a coach may leave a team. Just look at the list above. Reasons: he wants more control, he has too much control, he wants a higher salary, he feels burned out, he wants to be closer to home, he wants to spend time with his family, he has other interests in life, he may no longer be on the same page as others in the front office, the owner may have Alzheimer's or otherwise mercurial, etc.
I'm talking about guys who get fired. Gruden. Belichick. Shanahan. These guys got fired. Joe Gibbs came back and was awful, just as an example. Jon Fox is under heavy fire in Charlotte... why is that? Isn't he a 'good' coach? What of Jimmie Johnson in Miami? Why couldn't he get them to win there? Did he lose some of his 'good coach' ability? I'm not arguing with you, I'm asking the question: What makes a 'good' coach seemingly lose his ability to be a 'good' coach? How does a 'good coach' get fired?
You're answering a question I'm not asking...
-
Good point. But the Bills HAVE TALENT. Two pro bowl WR's, a pro bowl RB, and another (Jackson) would would make the prob bowl if he played all year. Most high school coaches could score one or more TD's per game with this talent, regardless of who is playing O line. The Steelers had a terrible O line last year (and this year) but won the SB. We have a better O line, better talent, and can't beat a half way decent team. DJ needs to go!
[Desperately trying to not make this thread about Jauron, specifically...]
Lee Evans has NEVER been a Pro-Bowler. Marshawn Lynch has never made a Pro-Bowl. TO was a pro-bowler 2 years ago, and is now 35. It is pretty obvious he isn't a pro-bowler anymore (just watch corners jam him at the line. He's having trouble getting a good release). Which isn't to say that he's not talented, he's just not a pro-bowler. Fred Jackson would make the pro-bowl if he played all year? Really? Since the guy ahead of him hasn't made a pro-bowl, ever, I just don't get that comment. (If these guys have been to the pro-bowl and I don't know about it, I apologize, and I'll be wrong, and I'll say I'm wrong and I give you guys permission to horsewhip me through the inter-tubes)
[Phew... done with Jauron]
Leaving aside the Jauron question (it is not my intention to defend him here)
Please see the posts above this of mine. If coaching is so important, how have the following guys ever gotten fired:
Dick Vermeil
Joe Gibbs
Jon Gruden
Bill Belichick
etc...
If Jon Fox (the speculation at the beginning of this thread) is such a good coach, how is it possible that Carolina is even considering firing him? How is it that Jon Gruden got fired last year? Did Jimmie Johnson just become a worse coach in Miami? What is it that makes a 'good' coach turn into a guy who deserves to get fired?
-
Have you watched him coach on Gameday...mistake after mistake
This is Jaurons third goat rope. Him and bellicheat arent even in the same league when it comes to coachin.
No offense taken..its all in good fun.
But let's put Jauron aside for the moment... What happened to Belichick in Cleveland? Why did he fail miserably? If John Fox is such a great coach, why are the Panthers even considering firing him? If Gruden is such a great coach, why did he get fired last year?
I know why I think those things happen, but I am genuniely interested in hearing others' takes on it. There are countless examples of this. Here are a few things I can think of:
Do Coaches 'slump'? Do talent differences overwhelm coaching differences? Do Coaches only work well with one particlular kind of team?
-
From the relevant section of the rulebook (I think).
69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.Isn't this pretty cut and dried? If Moen's (or Gionta's, not sure who they gave it to) goal is completely legal: Why wouldn't this be the strategy from now on? Barrel into the goalie and hope to push the puck into the net before it comes off its moorings? That HAS to be a higher percentage play than any of the other options, no?
-
I am still baffled how a coach that is 22-29 is still employed.
What if the thought in the organization (or around the league at the time) is that the underlying talent level of that particular team was ACTUALLY 15-36?*
Would you still be baffled?
Are you baffled that Bill Belichick was a colossal failure in Cleveland? What about Jimmie Johnson's years in Miami? How about Joe Gibbs' awful return? Three years ago, John Fox and Marvin Williams were geniuses. Today? What about Tom Coughlin? New Yorkers wanted to string him up by his testicles. Today?
Why do you think that is?
How is it that a guy is a ManGENIUS when Brett Favre's bicep isn't about to fall off but an idiot and fireable when it finally does?
If John Fox is such a great coach, (and I want you to think about this) how is it even POSSIBLE that Carolina is considering firing him?
*I make no claim that the Bills were actually a 15-36 team over the past three years. Simply making an observation.
Edit: Eh... this post came off harder than I wanted it to. I'm not trying to pick on you, I'm genuinely interested in answers from everybody on this. Why don't people think that talent level overwhelms coaching ability? I mean, isn't the evidence there for everyone to see every year in the league?
-
And what is your point? Like duh!!!
Of course he is willing... He went there without knowing... IWe of course presume that...
Yet, he knows the votes... He knows he is between a rock and a hard place.If Chicago falls short by a couple of votes if he doesn't go, and then everybody is screaming why he didn't pull a "Tony Blair."
You partisan hacks are unbelievable. It is the Olympics... I would think the same thing with ANY PoUS in there.
No reason NOT to go if anything to repair past image problems. The only thing that could have hurt worse is not going and isolating himself... True, maybe WE got votes, maybe WE lost votes...
Lets begin to see the forest through the trees... It is the Olympics and world sentiment... It is not all about Chicago.
I just want to make sure I understand your larger point in this thread.
You think it is/was in the best interests of the US that President Obama fly to Copenhagen and have Chicago lose the Olympic bid because:
1- It's like the Yankees (US being the Yankees). Nobody likes them winning all the time, so it's good that we lost. In other words - People around the world will like us better, or hate us less by virtue of this.
2- Further, it's better that he went and we still lost out, because it shows the world that they don't need to be cynical about everything i.e. "See, we can beat out a U.S. city, even when the President shows up to lobby for the games!"
3- By flying to Copenhagen and lobbying for the games, this helps us to repair past image problems.
Is that about right? I want to make sure I understand.
-
Chicago is New York, only clean. I really really like Chicago, it seems like a very liveable city in spite of the bad rap about crime. I'd live there even though it's flat and the winters suck.
I'm definitely biased, because I lived in Manhattan for 4 years, but I disagree with the first line. There is nothing like New York... everywhere else just seems like a big town in comparison (for me).
That being said, we moved out of New York and didn't go back because of family life. I loved it there, but I like seeing my kids for more than 20 minutes a day a lot better, and I imagine Chicago has to be better than New York in that regard, too... I'd definitely live in Chicago, too... I can't imagine the winters sucking any more than they do here in WNY!!! I've got 25 WNY winters under my belt, so I think I'd be OK.
Obama doesn't want Americans wasting money in Vegas
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Reasonable people can disagree on the effectiveness / necessity of the stimulus and whether or not we would be worse or better off in the long run with or without it.
What, in his quote, is objectionable, though? Everybody who feels like you do about fiscal restraint should be praising the hell out of a President talking about being fiscally responsible, right?