LSHMEAB

You missed the word that proceeded misfortune. It was "perceived." We all make mistakes.

Did you miss the post where someone predicted Dareus would be living under a bridge with his "homies?" It would make A LOT more sense if Dareus demanded a trade, left via FA'cy or had some kind of anti-Bills vendetta. None of that occurred. I'm old enough to remember the defense getting absolutely gashed 3 games in a row after his departure, so maybe the whole effort thing was overblown, eh? He was overpaid and there is a 0.0 percent chance he'll return to the Bills, so I don't quite get the fascination. I find it strange. You find it normal. Whatever floats one's boat.

"commonly."

It's really not the critique of his play or lack of motivation, etc. that strikes me as troublesome. It's the sheer glee at what is perceived as MD's misfortune. It's just....strange. I don't use message boards to spout hyperbolic nonsense that I don't really "feel." I use them to interact as I normally would and read/learn/interact. But that's just me. No interest in bringing him back and I'm sure that feeling is shared by Beane/McDermott and Dareus himself. So there's that.

Appreciate those $0.02 and the fact that we're having conversations about issues as opposed to Palace intrigue.

Ok. I'm not the type of guy who believes in omnipotent cabals, illuminati's, new world orders, birtherism, Russian Collusion, (interference has been proven), Sandy Hook nonsense, 9/11 "truthers." Any of it. I personally think people give far too much credit to the "powers that be." It matters not whether these theories emanate from the left side of the aisle or the right. Maybe some of these things are true. I don't know. Nor do you or anyone else on this board, and I say that respectfully. I view these THEORIES much the same way I view God; until someone can PROVE a positive, I'm going to believe a negative. But that's just me.

I get it. We need more young people paying into the system, not COLLECTING that SS check. I would have to say that neither party wants to touch SS, so I'm not sure this is a partisan issue. The third world country folks, if true, is definitely partisan because Dems "generally" get these votes. Seems to me there are enough people here and social engineering to create MORE citizens is back a##wards. We don't need to go the China route, but if what you say is the objective, I don't like it.

I mean, the heart of the plan isn't really designed to be deficit neutral. That's obvious. We're talking about human beings, so the plan is designed to provide coverage to all Americans. Essentially, is healthcare a right or a privilege? You've also got to take into account the enormous cost ER's take on because poor/uninsured folks already have a "right" to healthcare if you will. As far as employers go, I suppose they would be paying more in taxes, but it WOULD also eliminate the headache of providing employees insurance. You could make the case that the plan would increase companies' incentive to HIRE more people when you eliminate that perk.

Keith Ellison

Kevin Everett?

The excitement heading into 99 wasn't really about Flutie(from a practical perspective). This was a different era of football in which QB's weren't as prolific and the run game/defense mattered quite a bit more. Moulds had already established himself as a beast and Antoine Smith looked like a stud in the making. It was the defense and Wade Phillips that really created the optimism. Wade had a brief stint in Denver as a HC, but 1998 was the first time he was given full reign. We came within one play of winning a playoff game after starting 0-3 during his first year as HC with the Bills. There was tons of optimism because they had some serious weapons at WR/RB and a DOMINATING defense. We also hadn't experienced the drought, so there wasn't the same level of cynicism, at least for me personally.

Well, I think he's relatively up front in comparison to most politicians. Pocahontas attempted to dance around the issue. Bernie came right out in the debate and said that even MIDDLE CLASS taxes would be raised by 4 percent to pay Medicaid for all. Just to follow up; I don't disagree with your first paragraph. 50K a year with one kid? Yeah. You gotta be paying more than 2%. Kid probably costs more than 2k a year, but that doesn't mean your deduction should be THAT high. It's your kid. If we're ever going to get the deficit under control while maintaining some safety nets, that's unacceptable.

Right. Because the average person doesn't and shouldn't care what the CEO is earning as long as they're doing well. Solid point. Here's the deal as it pertains to my perspective; Sociopath is a bit strong for my taste for those who have acquired means, but they're obviously good at gaming the system. They're "good at life" so to speak. I don't begrudge Bezos, Bloomberg, Branson for attaining massive amounts of wealth. They're obviously innovate and they've earned the right to have massive amounts of wealth. BUT, there are folks who are just not "good at life." Some would like to label ALL of them as lazy, etc. That's fine. Some probably are. But many of them are simply not gifted. So the question becomes; do you want to directly help these people or go with a Darwinian approach in which they're twisting in the mind. I would prefer a social safety net that provides them some scraps. They're not gonna life well, but at least they'll have some scraps. Some hold the view that they either sink or swim on their own merit. It's a valid, although somewhat heartless position. So how do you directly help these people? That's a tough question, but I think it's worth exploring. You could take the approach of slashing all social programs, which is where this thing is headed given the deficit. That's one approach. I'd rather find a reasonable solution that involves government intervention. Cut off their scraps, and they'll probably end up in prison. Know why? Because they probably suck at crime too. "Good" criminals don't end up in prison. The notion of profiteering from incarceration personally sickens me. I'll leave it at that, but appreciate the well thought out response. You won't like this post!

Appreciate the compliment. While I have my views and I'll voice them, I give credit where it's due. There are A LOT of conservative idiots who espouse nonsense; obviously the same goes for liberals. But there are exceptions. I value your intellect in the same way I value the intellect of people like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. We all live very short lives. I want to know WHY and even if I disagree with a Ben Shapiro, I feel like I learned something.

OK. Well, I know you don't have to file taxes if you make less than 12.5k. That's a little different than paying because I'm sure there's a gap between 12.5 and the amount at which you still wouldn't PAY anything. But what's the max an individual can make and still not PAY any taxes? Like 25k? If 47% of Americans are making less than this threshold, THAT'S A PROBLEM!

I'm gonna gracefully bow out of this particular exchange; It's become evident over time that I stand a 0.0 percent chance of "defeating" YOU in a debate.

Really hope Bernie doesn't get sucked into pandering to the #MeToo, PC police crowd. That stuff flies in DC and Cali, but NOWHERE else. These PERSONAL attacks on Bloomberg do nothing but turn off voters in AMERICA. My honest assessment is that "liberal," (not of the neoliberal variety) policies are actually popular. It's the fringy assaults on free speech that serve as the Dem's greatest detriment in places like Ohio, PA, WI, and Michigan.

I think it would probably be lower than 20-25 percent; probably somewhere close to 15 percent in terms of that intersectionality. There's always the option of aggressively targeting tax avoiding corporations that operate chiefly in America and/or have outsourced their HQ's, yet mainly sell their goods here. Be very tough to get anything done considering we have a congress(both sides) largely beholden to corporate/special interest groups, but it's worth a shot. The concept itself is not far removed from trade wars and tariffs, which I SUPPORT. As is the case with the trade wars, the NUMBER 1 asset America possesses is it's market. Want to use our market? Pay your taxes. In reality, you may very well believe that corporations/1 percenters already pay enough. That's a perfectly reasonable stance. I disagree.

I'm not obsessed with Trump, and he has taken measures to address big Pharma, which I applaud. He hasn't done enough, but at least he's taken some targeted steps in the right direction. This argument really doesn't seem logical. You could make the corporate >1m/year rate 1% and they'd still try to pay 0. They'll try to pay zero regardless of where you set the rate.

As far as I can tell, you're not really making a case against taxing the rich at a higher rate; rather implying that they'll never pay them. Not quite sure what to make of that, but I know corporate lobbyists will be going HARD after Bernie. You think they're gonna go hard because they're concerned about the guy on disability or the guy making 40k a year? As far as healthcare goes, I conceded that America has obesity issues as well as addiction issues; almost certainly at a greater rate than the majority of countries. While it's a mitigating factor, it certainly doesn't fully explain the problem. I would say the Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex is the single greatest factor for the cost and PERHAPS, the outcomes. Docs pop out pills because they get kickbacks and MANY of these drugs, even non opioids, have a deleterious affect on people's overall health. You make a good point about the economy during the NIXON, Ford, Carter era, but fail to address the inevitable crash when the laissez faire approach is taken.

I'll refrain from the cultural considerations issue because I think it's got some merit, but it's a little dicey. I completely disagree that America's welfare state plays a role in upward mobility. If you look at the numbers, the countries at the top of this list; Denmark, Finland, Canada, Sweden, they all have a much more robust welfare state than does the United States. But to your point, these countries are also monoethnic, so there's that. This raises yet another problem. Production of goods and services increase every day, but that's largely a function of automation. Automation may pose an existential threat to our economy. We'll see what happens there, but there are very few professions that can't ultimately be replaced by a machine.

See, now that is really a fascinating concept. I don't know that I fully agree. Considering that the world contains a finite number of resources and can only create a finite number of services or goods, I do think it's quite possible that the rich getting richer negatively affects those at the bottom wrung. The tricky part there is that as a country, you want to have the most resources BECAUSE they are finite. So while I would like to see LESS income disparity, pulling that off without alienating business is really, really tough. But where I'm at, which likely differs from your perspective, is that I think it's a worthwhile endeavor. On a personal level, which means absolutely nothing; I ALWAYS take the side of the "underdog/little guy/powerless." So my focus is going to be on that demo. Pretty sure CEO's and 1 percenters don't need any advocates. What concerns me most about our economy is that the upward mobility rates are trash. We rank 16th out of 24 among the wealthiest nations in the world in terms of those born poor emerging into a higher class. I think that's a problem.

Appreciate the sentiment, but DR has "schooled" me many times. I think you can have constructive dialogue about the economy without getting into catfights.

I would have to check into that, and I'm sure this is correct. Still....That's pretty high. TOO HIGH. Just want to reiterate that my views are not anti-rich. If somebody like Bill Gates creates something that alters the world, he deserves to become wealthy. That's where I think we (progressives) need to be careful. You never want to stymie innovation.

Yeah. And I've read P.J O'Rourke's book regarding pizza, slices, and such. Solid counterarguments that I don't personally buy. Did you know that America, yes, the United States of America, once taxed the top 1 percent roughly 90 PERCENT of their earnings? This was in the 50's and 60's to pay for GI Bills and such. We needed to make America great again; is THIS the time period in which we needed to return or is it ONLY the 1980's laissez faire approach, which of course lead to a huge deficit crisis, just as the roaring 20's lead to 1929. Is Bernie Sanders proposing anything CLOSE to a 90 percent marginal rate? The answer is of course not. You can disagree with his policies, but the notion that these proposals are DRASTIC alterations from anything we've seen before just doesn't mesh with history. The reason I ask the question regarding CEO/worker ratio is because I believe capitalism is great, but requires a proverbial reset button on occasion. It's entirely possible that Sanders is TOO extreme. Maybe. I don't know. But the reason I posed the question is that I believe unchecked capitalism WOULD lead to soaring CEO/worker rates. Like I said, does it become a problem if it's 10,000 to 1? I would say yes. That's a problem. Once again Rob; I don't want to see any policies that preclude folks from getting extremely wealthy through innovation and creativity. That would lead to disastrous consequences. But I have zero problem with taxing those at the top a slightly higher rate for things like healthcare and higher minimum wage standards. Free tuition? That's a bit far for my taste. I think there should be MORE assistance for kids who did well in high school but come from poor backgrounds. Free for everyone? Meh. Little too far. Last thing I'll say on this is that if the minimum wage were adjusted for inflation from it's inception, we'd be talking about raising it to 19 and change an hour. Sanders is proposing 15/hr. So historically speaking, the minimum wage would STILL not top where it's been right here in America. Ok. I lied. Democrats have lost all their credibility regarding Trump with nonsensical investigations and accusations. It's a little different because of the time lapse, but R's lost a lot of cred with their proclamations regarding an Obama Presidency. Remember when he was a socialist and the country would be destroyed? I don't think people feel that way about 2009-2017. Now Sanders is much more progressive than Obama, but those fear tactics are fresh in my mind; not so sure people have long enough memories for that to matter electorally. LOL. Probably quite a bit if we're being honest.