birdog1960

i think we'd be much happier with our receivers if we had a top 15 TE and a top 15 QB playing.

no, the loss wasn't chandler's fault but how many wins have been? he's is not and will never approach the impact player status the current top tier or even 2nd tier TE's in the league are in. we have RB's in those categories and up and coming wide receivers that may well be but chandler just isn't.

we need a reliable tight end that is a downfield threat. . chandler on his best day is bottom half. not good enough. some of those drops looked as though he was having a seizure. he's just not good enough. draft one early or pick up a very good free agent TE early next year.

why is it that when ever anyone mentions taxing the wealthy more or any mechanism of redistributing or even stemming the tide of more concentration of wealth at the top, you (and others here) immediately conclude the motivation must be envy or resentment? It is certainly possible that for some, their motivation is based on their morals and ethics or even guilt. it doesn't immediately or logically follow that it must be due to envy or resentment. perhaps this conclusion is a result of projection. a liberal colleague of mine believes that a portion of the non 1%ers that feel this way are convinced that someday, somehow they will achieve that 1% threshold.

is this the newest argument style espoused by limbaugh or hannity? that's at least 2 threads during which you've used the insightful argument "funny" to which i say "lazy". oh and the tagteam ad hominem attacks never go out of vogue especially on those brilliant aforementioned "journalism" shows. yet "teabagger" is out of bounds. funny...

have been to a saints game asa kid in the distant past (archie was qb and they played in the sugar bowl at the time) but lived in NO for about a year and in general met lots of nice folks. glad to hear about the fan experience for out of towners. would make me much more likely to go to a future bills game there. on the other hand, we went to an lsu/tennessee game in baton rouge a few years back and it was brutal. we went with a bunch of tenn fans so we chose to wear orange. right off the bus we saw a mob jeering the tenn marching band to the point that they had a police escort into the stadium. way to many taunts and vulgarities throw our way but mostly by students. on the way out, our group was being further verbally abused by students when a group of adults walked up and shamed the morons and apologized. still, don't think i'd ever go back there for a game.

"as the party deals with poor approval ratings folowing the gov't shutdown". never thought chaney was a dufus. evil? quite possibly. but he's referenced here as a repub party insider that still wields some significant influence especialyy as a paid commentator for fox.

wow. so sensitive. form your icon, thought you had thicker skin. i've seen "libtard" and outright vulgarity directed at liberals typed here more than a few times . i just remember to consider the source but ok, if it bothers you that much i'll stop. see, we're meant to be cognizant of others feelings here, on the left.

dick cheney's appraisal of how the shutdown went for the gop: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cheney-republicans-need-look-new-generation. "we got whipped". wonder who he's talking about as the new generation of leaders...you'd think if it were teabaggers he'd spell it out.

http://www.stltoday....aa40346ba3.html being debated as to the quotes veracity but if it did happen, what are your thoughts? oh, and by the way, pete sessions is the congressman named although curiously, not in this piece.

he won't sleep tonight. must have broken some ribs and that's pale faced agony. but he played through it and passed pretty damn well. how can you not love his effort? i think he's won the backup qb spot for the forseeable future. i'd certainly be content with him in that spot. he needs to learn touch passes and to avoid hits but c'mon, most of those hits can't be blamed on him. this team has guts i haven't seen in 10 years from the Bills. that's not enough but it sure helps. especially for watching the games and making it better than raking leaves or mowing the lawn and it surely is this year. i think they're close and may even pull out a decent win streak from here on out. easy to root for. something i can't say for many of the teams in the last decade +.

anticipated...it was bad policy. it was clinton's bad policy. not nearly as unretrievable as 2 catastrophic, ill advised wars. it can be fixed.

driving this weekend i heard this http://www.npr.org/2013/10/26/241030961/value-in-sharing-the-ratio-of-ceos-pay-to-employees. i assume this is what gg is talking about but i like the cornell economist's take: why can't we wind back the clock on this policy with good intentions and bad results. as i stated earlier, the big corporations found a way around the intent. they're pretty smart fellas, no doubt. so make the counter move and stop the madness.

bs. we used cost based accounting in my private practice for almost 20years. i had no idea of the accounting nuances. we paid someone else to do that and give us the ckliff notes version at the end. our manager scoured the numbers for mistakes. and we did pretty well. consistently, compensation wise, taxable bottom line near zero every year etc. and we retained employees (and continue to) at an impressive rate. so, no. i don't need to k now much accounting to understand and debate the issue just like i didn't need much to run a comp[any. i don't want to know much accounting. i know accountants that wish they didn't know much accounting. it's mind numbing. if you look at the data presented on the linked state dept site, it tends to counter most of your arguments like increasing unemployment. high turnover is counterproductive. eliminating that is good. the fast food industry IS the way you describe but might it run better with more dedicated employees. finally, what ever you want to call it, that compensation buys 2nd and 3rd houses, 4th and 5th cars, 30 foot sailboats and frequent weekends at 5 star resorts in other continents. should ceo's be able to buy these things? sure, i'll bet most could do all that at some reasonable multiple of minimum wage as their wages or with additional compensation.

http://www.dol.gov/minwage/. check out the myths on this labor dept site. sound familiar? not much of a surprise that you all think you know better than people whose career it is to study and analyze such issues. but it will be discounted because the folks behind this site will be labelled liberals. and gg, one doesn't need to be an accountant to understand the issues here. it's quite simple: a lot of people in the us have little money and a very few have enormous sums. and it becomes more unbalanced every day. and you still haven't pointed out an inaccuracy in my restatement of your position just that you don't like my position.

it's like arguing with a concrete statue. do you even comprehend the words "concept" or "abstract"? the level of involvement of the irs in the scenario makes no difference to the discussion on minimum wage or compensation ratios. but carry on, just dion't choke on your own smoke screen. so what exactly was your meaning? perhaps you could diagram the logic?

i did. don't see how adding the rest changes the beginning. i actually wrote my interpretation of this for him to correct and he did not. guess i saw the forest after all.

the fast food industry employees a large swath of the country's minimum wage earners. the numbers you seek for many of these companies are contained in the article linked at the beginning of this thread.

you should read better. and your disapproval is irrelevant. perhaps if you looked at the forest and not so much at the trees you'd see things differently. week to week rentals spending some weeks in cars etc i suppose. is the exactg definition that important? trees, meet forest.

"there's a gap between what jobs are available, what those jobs pay and available affordable housing." that's my point and it's salient to the discussion on the compensation low paid workers receive from the companies cited in the article that this thread is based on. and probably more importantly, how many of these homeless student afre likely to be trained for jobs that pay higher than minimum wage by the time they're of age to work? of course, it will be viewed by you all as their own fault due to lack of ambition.

the irs was initially mentioned in this thread regarding this issue by gg. "someone" might have meant congress but i thought not. no one seemed upset at his mistake, likely because they made the leap from irs to irs at direction of congress. or maybe because he was making a point most agreed with. and guess who made the statement that that the effort was aimed at maintaining the drucker rule? maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. at any rate, i don't think he was talking about the 39.6%individual tax bracket but you'd need to ask him. i was arguing against the opinion that such an effort would be wrong minded because it feel that it wouldn't be. far fetched, isn't it? http://money.cnn.com...ents/index.html

yes, and 3rd contends it's unconstitutional.

then congress can constitutionally authorize the irs to set very high tax rates for those making over some arbitrary ratio above minimum wage, right? just as they can set arbitrary levels for progressive tax rates to kick in, right?

if it's unconstitutional for the irs to target supersized ceo pay based on the amount of compensation, it follows that it would be unconstitutional to tax anyone more based on the amount of compensation. does it not?

touche. you are correct, sir. the pink slime tax will be paid mostly by lower income people.