Mavric

I think Martinez was only there a year. Yes, he was. That's how it happened to work out in this situation. Just pretty hard to repeat some situation like that with three top notch QBs - that was my point.

I wasn't sure I really liked rally scoring when in first came in for one major reason - if you get down by 4 or 5 points late, you're pretty much done. Under the old system, you could make a mistake or two and still have a chance to come back. I guess it's grown on my somewhat, though. I'm curious if anyone has any idea how many substitutions are used in an average set. Do a lot of teams use up their 12 or is it usually closer to 8-9?

That's pretty crazy. Considering that high school QBs that are good enough to go D1 would almost always start at least two years (I would think), that's nearly impossible.

So the stimulus was the only variable in the economy? is it now? You're the one who made the claim that "Reagan's stimulus package resulted in decreased inflation and increased employment." That doesn't seem to leave any room for anything else to have caused decreased inflation and increased employment. I would argue to the contrary but I was just wondering if you could defend your assertion.

Which is more than the 47% of wage earners that paid 0%. yeah, because they have no money. what is your point? so, because he is paying more than the absolute least (WHICH, WHO KNOWS HOW MUCH HE HAS BEEN PAYING BEFORE THEN, are we so sure it is not zero?), we should not care? i think if the bottom 47% had a choice between paying no taxes because they are poor, or paying 30% because they are in the meaty middle-class, i am sure they would choose the latter. So many generalities in one short post: 1) My point is that it is not regressive as you keep claiming. 2) In your book, the "absolute least" is nearly half? 3) Do you know what the income level is of the top of that 47%?

I don't recall every saying that was the only data you could use. Any data you can find would be fine with me. Just prove your argument.

So the stimulus was the only variable in the economy?

It was Carter's fault - Reagan inherited a bad economy. Just in case

Which is more than the 47% of wage earners that paid 0%.

Unless I'm finding a different lawsuit than you're referring to, it would seem that your presentation of the case is also a lie.

That isn't really the point though, is it? We're not looking to the wealthy to erase our debt, we just want them to shoulder the same tax burden we shoulder. "United we stand, divided we fall." We learn that in Kindergarten, but for some reason, expecting this today leads to howls of "class warfare." The point is all this arguing about raising taxes on the rich is barely a drop in the bucket. Raising tax rates on the two two tax brackets and raising the tax rate on capital gains per the President's budget would "only" raise a little over $1T in THE NEXT 10 YEARS! Put another way, it wouldn't event raise enough money to balance the budget for ANY of the last four years even though those taxes would be collected over the next 10. Yet that seems to be the main tactic the Democrats can put forward: "Make the rich pay their fair share." That's fine (if anyone would explain exactly what their "fair share" is) but at about $100B per year, it'll be barely noticeable in terms of the deficit. Edit - By the way, many are not asking the rich to bare "the same burden". It has been said many times, including by yourself, that they should pay more because they can.

And for the record, I didn't mention whether it's regressive. Or regressive enough. I was merely pointing out that your stats were meaningless. So the top 10% pay 75% of the country's taxes. That tells us absolutely nothing about how regressive our taxes are without more data. So here's another attempt at an explanation: <snip> Admittedly I don't know a hell of a lot about this, so I might be looking like an idiot now, but the point stands that you cannot know whether or not our taxes are regressive (or too regressive, or not regressive enough) just because you know that the highest earners are paying 3/4 of the taxes. Therefore the data you provided is useless. You gave us no information that we could actually discuss. I never said that you claimed they are regressive. It was sd'sker that maid that claim: just to be clear, i agree with this. that is what i was getting at; that our tax system is effectively not progressive and in practice is regressive. as well, i am not in favor of a flat tax. I have just asked either of you to show and/or explain how they are regressive, which to date neither of you has. Your example is fine but it's also totally irrelevant in that it's a fictional example, not what is actually happening.

Sorry, I knew it would be tough to explain. Perhaps I'm the only one who notices so it's not a big deal. An example: I went into Husker Basketball and clicked "Mark this forum as read". Then I went into the Funny Sports Pics and .gifs thread and clicked "Go to first unread post. It took me to the Tebow picture (currently the last post in the thread) even though I hadn't viewed the thread since the Gottlieb and Alabama Tatoo post had been submitted since the last time I looked at the thread. Maybe not worth spending a lot of time on.

True, but the three redshirts wouldn't be on the two-deep.

Early in Pelini's head coaching career, I thought the reason our ends were playing fairly passive is because we could get away with it because Suh and Crick could do so much damage on their own. I have since learned that isn't the case. A more aggressive approach would be a welcome change, IMHO.

Hope I can explain this well enough. Not a big deal just a quirk that would be nice to have fixed. I'm sure it's in the software. Sorry if it's been brought up before. I try to look through all the forums but, for lack of time or interest, I don't read all the threads. I do a lot of looking through the forum for thread titles and number of responses. Once I've looked at the ones I want, I use the "Mark this forum as read" link. This takes away the highlight from all threads in that forum (e.g., "Husker Football"). The problem arises when I go to another forum and try to look at new posts from a different thread. The folder icon by the thread title is highlighted in red when there are new posts. However, when I go into a thread and click "Go to first unread post", it will take me (I believe) to the first post in that thread since I clicked "Mark this forum as read" in a different forum. Perhaps it's considering the "Forum" to be "Sports" where I'm expecting it to be "Husker Football". Not a huge deal but I just thought I'd bring it up to see if someone can explain it to me or have it submitted as a fix.

That was a great explanation to a question I didn't ask. You both realize there is a difference between wealth and income, right? If either of you would like to explain how that distribution is regressive, please feel free. you did ask that question. that was the point i was making and you asked to explain. wealth begets wealth (just as poverty begets poverty). the problem is with capital gains taxes and other protections investments receive. i am sure moiraine can better explain this. The percentages have nothing to do with wealth (which is what Moiraine said). It has to do with income. They are related but not the same thing. His explanation was wrong. Then he veers off into a rant on meritocracy. That is an extreme oversimplification of success. I could work 10^10 times harder than anyone on the planet but I still couldn't beat out Rex Burkhead for the starting RB spot or beat Usain Bolt in a sprint. Trying to explain success as "screwing others" is pretty childish. The question I asked is how is the current tax system regressive. I still haven't seen an answer.

So no one is employed in managing hedge funds, buying and selling stocks, running the NYSE, etc.? They "refuse" to subsidize infrastructure? You do know what subsidize means, don't you? Are you saying they are refusing to pay the taxes they owe? so their only value to society is the relatively few people they employ? that is worth risking people's pensions, ira's, 401(k)'s? the car industry produces cars and employs people, that is how an industry should work. sub·si·dize/ˈsəbsəˌdīz/ Support (an organization or activity) financially. Pay part of the cost of producing (something) to reduce prices for the buyer. I didn't say that was their only value and you were the one who said they didn't anyone other than themselves. Did you want to answer my questions?

That was a great explanation to a question I didn't ask. You both realize there is a difference between wealth and income, right? If either of you would like to explain how that distribution is regressive, please feel free.

I agree. Three per year times four years is 12 - barely enough to fill a two-deep without injuries, transfers, busts, etc. Four would be much better.

just to be clear, i agree with this. that is what i was getting at; that our tax system is effectively not progressive and in practice is regressive. as well, i am not in favor of a flat tax. Taxes Paid by Earning Percentiles (2009): Top 1% - 36.7% Top 5% - 58.7% Top 10% - 70.5% Bottom 50% - 2.25% How can that possibly be considered regressive? How much more progressive would you like it to be? that is more of an issue regarding wealth inequality than anything. that has nothing to do with tax rates or what the super rich actually pay. Please explain.

how do hedge funds, the stock market, or selling short help the economy or anyone other than the investor? why should we subsidize their risk when they refuse to subsidize the infrastructure and means to take such risks? and you are switching back and forth between people and corporations. also, that is why you can write of losses, but why should we subsidize oil companies making record profits? their record profits are not enough for the r&d? finally, i am not sure hospitals really belong in this conversation. So no one is employed in managing hedge funds, buying and selling stocks, running the NYSE, etc.? They "refuse" to subsidize infrastructure? You do know what subsidize means, don't you? Are you saying they are refusing to pay the taxes they owe?

By "everyone" I meant every tax payer. I should have been more precise but I thought that would have been obvious. It is a overly simplistic to say giving money to people will help the economy. Where did that money come from in the first place? Out of the economy. So money is removed from the economy, the middle people take their cut, then it is placed back into the economy. Even if there was not a cut taken out, that is - at best - a zero sum game. why should you not have to explain how investing in stocks is good for our economy? the stock market is a scam. it is not based on the value of a company or its production. it is based on speculation and artificial forces. when oil companies do operate at a loss, they get to write that off. that is the incentive. you either profit or write-off your loses. are most hospitals not public or non-profit? and if it is private, usually it is insanely profitable. You continue to act like income made by the rich goes into some black hole. What do they do with it? Hide it under their mattress? Where do companies get money to hire more workers? I'm not saying that rich investors are the paragons of virtue but to insinuate that all that money is somehow gone from the economy is ridiculous.

just to be clear, i agree with this. that is what i was getting at; that our tax system is effectively not progressive and in practice is regressive. as well, i am not in favor of a flat tax. Taxes Paid by Earning Percentiles (2009): Top 1% - 36.7% Top 5% - 58.7% Top 10% - 70.5% Bottom 50% - 2.25% How can that possibly be considered regressive? How much more progressive would you like it to be?