JJ Husker

I don't think that's too relevant. People celebrate Jesus' birth on Dec. 25 whether it's the correct date or not. I think somebody didn't get the Red Ryder BB gun they wanted as a child.

Who said they have a monopoly on the whole month? Who said Jesus' birth was the "only" reason for the season? But, do you really think without Christmas the season (between Thanksgiving to just after New Years) would be anywhere near the event it is? And it doesn't really matter when something happened 2000 years ago, December 25th is when people have chosen to celebrate it so it is when it is. See what I mean....Doesn't matter what a person does or says, somebody's gonna get bent or take it the wrong way.

Or you could say "Happy Holidays".This ^And JJ, I don't see why that would be your reply after reading my post. Nowhere did I say anyone should say Happy Hanakkuh to a stranger they think is Jewish. In fact - see the Kwanzaa example I used earlier. I said telling someone who's clearly Jewish (because they're wearing a yamulke) Merry Christmas is a little weird. I didn't say anything about telling them Happy Hanakkuh. I did say some people of other religions have told me Merry Christmas. Also, it bears repeating that we're talking about strangers. Not your cousin. It also bears repeating I'm not saying anyone should be offended by any of this. Mostly what I'm thinking about with my comments is there is nothing wrong with schools or businesses instructing their employees to say Happy Holidays. I just don't think many normal people in a situation to wish someone well would say Merry Christmas to someone in a yamulke or tell someone wearing a cross to enjoy Diwali. Therefore it's not wrong for employers to give instructions to their employees. As I said in an earlier post, some customers flip out over even less. Better to err on the side of caution. It doesn't mean these companies are attacking Christmas. Which is the idea that seems to ruffle people's feathers. I guess I do have a little bit of a problem with the secular Happy Holidays greeting. I mean there are reasons for all these holidays and none of them are secular. It doesn't offend me but I see no reason for me to use that generic greeting. If I was an atheist or didn't practice any religion, then I would probably go that way, but I'm not so I don't. Honest question - can you explain what you mean by the bolded? I think everybody is on the same page that these holidays have religious foundations. Are you just reinforcing that? I won't try to dissuade you from saying Merry Christmas so long as you see why people might use Happy Holidays instead, which you say you have a little bit of a problem with. Speaking only for myself, I say Happy Holidays because: - I'm Lutheran, but others aren't - I define saying "Merry Christmas" as the literal meaning of celebrating Jesus' birth while also wishing someone good will. I don't separate those two things - "Happy Holidays" also encompasses the New Year celebration, which almost everyone celebrates whether they're religious or not For me, it has nothing to do with offending people or not offending people. I think I've covered this but... I don't have any problem at all with any way another person chooses to say it. Happy Holidays is just peachy with me. I just prefer to say Merry Christmas because that is what feels comfortable for me. I'm not trying to reinforce to others that I see it as a Christian holiday or impose my beliefs on anyone. However, I am a little bit sensitive towards any effort to expunge Christmas from the lexicon so I guess part of the reason I use Merry Christmas is to remind myself why this time of year is different than others. It is very easy to get wrapped in shopping and lights and all these other things and forgot why we are doing it or what we are really celebrating. Sorry if it offends anyone but it wouldn't be the huge shopping season etc. that it is without the birth of Christ as the reason for all the commotion. I guess it's just my way of trying to prevent the reason for season getting completely forgotten.

Or you could say "Happy Holidays".This ^And JJ, I don't see why that would be your reply after reading my post. Nowhere did I say anyone should say Happy Hanakkuh to a stranger they think is Jewish. In fact - see the Kwanzaa example I used earlier. I said telling someone who's clearly Jewish (because they're wearing a yamulke) Merry Christmas is a little weird. I didn't say anything about telling them Happy Hanakkuh. I did say some people of other religions have told me Merry Christmas. Also, it bears repeating that we're talking about strangers. Not your cousin. It also bears repeating I'm not saying anyone should be offended by any of this. Mostly what I'm thinking about with my comments is there is nothing wrong with schools or businesses instructing their employees to say Happy Holidays. I just don't think many normal people in a situation to wish someone well would say Merry Christmas to someone in a yamulke or tell someone wearing a cross to enjoy Diwali. Therefore it's not wrong for employers to give instructions to their employees. As I said in an earlier post, some customers flip out over even less. Better to err on the side of caution. It doesn't mean these companies are attacking Christmas. Which is the idea that seems to ruffle people's feathers. I wasn't necessarily responding to what you have said. There are some saying that it is insensitive to tell a non-Christian Merry Christmas. I simply don't feel that is the case. And I dont personally see anything wrong, or anything anyone should take offense with, if they are wished a Merry Christmas. I get that some people may disagree with me. I say Merry Christmas and I'm not going to change what I do because it might offend a few people over the course of my lifetime. If a person wants to say happy holidays or Hannakuh or whatever, that's great, I've got no problem with it. I wouldn't expect a non-Christian person to say Merry Christmas. That would be just as strange as me saying something else IMO. I guess I do have a little bit of a problem with the secular Happy Holidays greeting. I mean there are reasons for all these holidays and none of them are secular. It doesn't offend me but I see no reason for me to use that generic greeting. If I was an atheist or didn't practice any religion, then I would probably go that way, but I'm not so I don't. The point I was trying to make was that I think what a person says should have more to do with them than who it is directed at. I think people get a little too concerned about trying not to offend anybody. No matter what you do, somebody somewhere likely will be offended. I'm just not going to worry about things I can't control.

Who is saying that?HuskermanMike, basically. Although to be fair he's saying it's what he does, 'cause I asked the Muslim/Jewish question.Not the way I took his comments. There obviously is certain stirrings it wouldn't be said. But, I have no problem telling a Jewish friends merry Christmas and he would turn around and say happy Hanukkah. And, it's nothing like saying GBR yo an Alabama fan. Oh so this thread is about what we would say to our friends now? I thought it was about what we would say to random people on the street. My bad. If were talking about what we would say to our friends I like to say merry christmas ya filthy animal. Now go f#*k yourself. Obviously we would say things to our friends we might not say to someone we dont know and they wouldnt mind as much Oh good lord. It was one example. Would you honestly tell a stranger in a yamulke Merry Christmas? How about a client in a yamulke? So now we need to assume what religion a person is based on their skin color, their attire and what they look like, and then wish them well for whatever holiday we assume they celebrate? This is why I do not feel it is strange to wish them well in whatever you feel comfortable with. Sure, if you know they are Jewish and that they celebrate Hannakuh, then wish them happy Hannakuh. That would cover known friends and the obvious yamulka wearing stranger. But I also don't feel it is out of line or weird to wish them Merry Christmas. We would always wish my cousin's Jewish husband Merry Christmas and he would wish us Happy Hannakuh. It wasn't weird and nobody took offense either way. What could be offensive is assuming a person was Muslim or Jewish or whatever, based on their appearance, and then getting it wrong. I figure I'm a Christian and celebrate Christmas so I should say Merry Christmas in virtually every circumstance. Since I would never be offended by someone wishing me well from any other religion, I expect people to likewise not be offended if they happen to be non-Christian. If they are offended by me saying Merry Christmas, well then F me, I guess I tried being nice.

That's the thing, we are seeing more and more players leaving early or opting out of bowl games to preserve their future earning potential. If the NCAA can't stop that (which they can't) then it makes sense to let the transfers and redshirts play. It would create more interest in the bowl games and therefore translate to more $$'s for CFB. That appears to align well with their main concerns. It doesn't have anything to do with "student" athletes or promoting fair play anymore so I say go for it.Only thing is Vegas may not like it so that could be the death knell. How about a 1 for 1 swap? Three players opt out = three red shirt/transfer opt in. Not for the play offs. That makes sense but I think would complicate it unnecessarily. I'd be for either allowing it or not allowing it, without the stipulation. Heck, the SEC would start forcing players out to get around it anyway so probably no need to try to make it fair and sensible. That would just hamstring the straight shooters.

That's the thing, we are seeing more and more players leaving early or opting out of bowl games to preserve their future earning potential. If the NCAA can't stop that (which they can't) then it makes sense to let the transfers and redshirts play. It would create more interest in the bowl games and therefore translate to more $$'s for CFB. That appears to align well with their main concerns. It doesn't have anything to do with "student" athletes or promoting fair play anymore so I say go for it. Only thing is Vegas may not like it so that could be the death knell.

So which is it? We want freshmen contributing right away, or we don't? Seems a lot of people lament the fact we haven't had freshmen seeing the field, and they constantly point to the top programs having that happening. Now, when it looks like a possibility, it's all, well, they're inexperienced and blah blah blah. Maybe I don't give the WR position enough credit but if the OL and QB can get the job done, the least of my worries will always be the WR corps. If the OL and QB don't perform better than this year, it wouldn't matter if we had 8 Westerkamps returning.

Guessing ST's have already improved tenfold then. If they just have him count to 11, we'll be way ahead of the curve.

I think it's a great idea. Exclude the playoff teams and go for it. Actually, I wasn't sure redshirts were prohibited from playing in the bowls. I almost asked that very question on HB a couple weeks ago but I didn't want to look stupid. Figured it would come up naturally considering our current issues at quarterback. The bowl would be a great opportunity to get Lee and POB an early segue into next season.

This is how it is at the school my wife teaches at. The teachers have to decorate in a "Happy Holidays" theme because some parents went in and complained about the "Merry Christmas" theme because they do not celebrate Christmas. There is one particular family that raised a stink about it along with having a Halloween party because they don't celebrate Halloween and it would offend their children. The Principal of the school told the family to get bent and he is not going to make every other kid suffer because of it. He told them to keep the kids home or they can go sit in the library during that class's celebration. I like this principal. We had a similar kid/family years ago that threw a fit over having a Halloween celebration at school. Our principal did the same thing, told them to check their child out of school during the party if they felt that was best for them. BTW, I say Merry Christmas and I don't care what other people say. If somebody wants to wish me happy Kwanzaa or Hanukkah or holidays or whatever, I'm just glad they were thoughtful enough to express it anyway they choose. The only thing I have a problem with is when people or businesses try to suppress Merry Christmas or insist it be expressed as Happy Holidays. I figure let people do what they feel is appropriate.

Spent Christmas back in 'Brasky. Doesn't get any merrier than that. Might need some +1's though because it is raining rather than snowing.

Go back and read post #1 in this topic and you will understand better why the discussion is centered on schools, vouchers and a Christian republic.

I agree with you on this. I know you have a hard time saying positive things about Trump, but can you at least appreciate that he is focused on making the government more efficient, and will be having his team examine every contrage/agreement with the government to make sure the American people are not getting ripped off. The Boeing example is just one of many that Trump will deliver as POTUS. He is setting a tone to all government contractors that the days of making a killing off the government are over. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/21/boeing-ceo-vows-to-build-new-air-force-one-for-less-after-trump-complaints.html I'm sure there are some making a killing off the government but, it's been my experience dealing with state and federal contracts that they require you to charge those entities obscene amounts more than you would have to on a normal business deal. They put so many extreme and unnecessary requirements on things that you have to allow for a bunch more real and anticipated costs. It really is absurd. I actually refuse to even look at federal projects anymore because I simply can't charge enough to meet their BS. I actually did a small residential project for free for an elderly handicapped veteran. It was about a $350 job but since the veterans administration was involved they required all kinds of reviews and inspections and ridiculous specs. My price to them for that $350 job was going to be about $3200. When the guy told me it had to be that way since he couldn't afford even the $350 and the government was paying the bill, I told him I would do it for him for free as long as he kept the government out of it. So anyway, most of the people that you think are "screwing" the government are doing so because they make you screw them. Most of it appears to be an out of control "make work" scheme to keep themselves fully employeD and constantly expanding. Hopefully Trump gets after that huge part of the problem.

I agree with all of that 100%. However, if we don't delve deeper than the general idea that those are good things and poor people need more help, we can skate right past reality and overlook the limits of finite resources or the repercussions on the big picture. I'm not some cold hearted greedy evil bastard that just wants more for me and less for the needy. I know there are huge numbers that need and deserve help. Unfortunately this world has always tended towards general poverty. Yes, there are those "haves" who can afford to provide assistance more than others. I think it's only prudent to explore what that looks like and a little more technically how it should work otherwise we have no idea if our general thoughts of "these are good things" and "these people need help" jive with what we can actually do about it. As an example, if I gave $10 to every panhandler with a sign that I pass daily, I may soon run out of money. For some people that amount could be $1 or $10 or $500. It still doesn't change the facts that there are people that need help, it is good to help them, and those that can provide the help have financial constraints. Both sides of the equation have to be considered.

If I get time sometime today, I am going start anther thread related to this subject. The idea being that everyone can breakdown a couple different income levels and assign percentages where there think 100% of that income should go. Say a person makes $100,000, how much to each of the different taxes, how much to healthcare insurance and costs, food, housing, savings (if any) etc. I think it will be interesting to see people's ideas and differences at the 50k, 150k and 1M levels. I will probably specify for a family of 4. So you can be thinking about that in anticipation of my awesome topic idea;-)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "good deal" and you may have a way different interpretation of what "unfair" is. One definition of fair would be, I put a dollar in and I get a dollar out. Fair can get conflated and subjective real quick when you start talking about other people's money or about this group but not that group. Maybe we should flip the cap and lower it. Exempt the first $50k of income from SS tax for everybody. Just one idea.

If my income was $1M per year, I wouldn't have a problem and wouldn't being crying about it. But it is way too easy to say for anyone to say that about some hypothetically significantly elevated income level. People at $40k can say it about me, and people in my shoes can say it about the $1M level. I can make a really good case about how those between $100k and $200k income levels, particularly small business owners, are already being overly taxed. The tough part of it is, I dont ever get to even collect as actual income all the money my tax form says I made. To use round numbers, let's say Bob collects $100k in the form of a paycheck and his books show a $50k profit for a $150k gross income. Part of the problem is Bob likely never sees much of that $50k as his business can't afford to distribute 100% of profits. There are capital expenditures, cash flow concerns and bankers to keep happy. About the best a guy can hope for is to be able to distribute about 50% of the book profit and guess what, that is almost all eaten up by paying the taxes on it. So it is really like Bob only made $125k but got taxed for $150k. How much does that really leave for Bob after we figure all the taxes and he cant collect all the income he's being taxed on? I'm not exaggerating these things. I may be using rough numbers but I'm not falsely misleading on any of it. The middle and upper middle class are being taxed quite heavily IMO. So, when you say just remove the cap at $118k, I sort of feel like my only purpose here is to be kept alive for the harvesting of my body parts. Really, I and many in the similar situation are already paying more than enough, more than is fair, more than should be required. It's not as simple as saying but you make 6 times what Joe does so here's another bill to pay.

I'm not a believer in a minimum wage increase doing much good. I wouldn't say I'm opposed to raising it, I just think the benefit of that small increase gets offset by the mutiple small cost increases it will cause for those who it is intended to help. Hypothetically let's increase minimum wage $1.00 per hour. That gives that person an additional $2,000 per year. Those increased wages also will mostly get passed on to consumers. So if this person works at McDonalds, McD's starts charging a little more for everything on their menu....and so does every other business that is now paying more in wages. Are the people who got this wage increase immune to rising costs for virtually everything they have to buy? The answer is that $2000 raise pretty much just got wiped out with increased costs on everything. I wish raising the minimum wage would do some good for low income people but I really don't think it does much at all. My other thought is that minimum wage type jobs are not meant to support a family. Teenagers and some young single people also need jobs and a source of income. Sorry but not every job can be expected to be sufficient for raising a family or even for being enough for one person to really live on. The key is to grow the economy and create higher paying jobs. Not falsifying things and trying to make a burger flipping job enough. We need those types of jobs but they have their limits for what we can expect from them. Using your prior example, I don't think a person working 40 hours at a minimum wage job should expect that to be enough. One of the basic problems with our economy is that it has shifted so far to the service industry (typically minimum wage type) and away from higher paying manufacturing jobs etc. We buy cheap crap from overseas and whine about the lost jobs and and somehow think we now need to pay the mother of 2 more to hand food out a window for 40 hours a week rather than paying a pimple faced teen less to do it for only 10 hours a week just so he can have a little spending money. Sorry, rambling, way too tired.

Let's say more realistically, Bob is self employed and makes $138,000. Bob pays; 6.2% of 118 employee share $7136 6.2% of 118 employer share $7136 2.9% of 138 both shares of Medicare $4002 $18,274 total ss and Medicare Plus another roughly $47,000 fed & state Income tax. So round numbers $65,000 total out of $138 leaves him $73,000. Effective rate 47%. While Joe paid a little more than $1200 and has about 18,000 left. One of them paid about $65k the other maybe $2k. Bob still has $73k left while Joe only has $18k left. When that apparently isn't enough, is the solution still to take even more from Bob? I mean there is $55k left until they are left with the same amount. What if that isn't enough? BTW, I am not claiming the 47% effective tax rate is correct. It is a bit less than that with deductions and whatnot. But it's not a lot less than this example. As you say, they both have the same value as humans. But one of them paid 32 times more real dollars and about a 40% higher percentage but Bob still has more leftover.... Should the concern be removing the cap and getting another $2480 out of Bob?

I don't know what you're asking or if you're replying to me but I just googled it before posting.The cap is $118,000 and "You contribute 6.2 percent of your income. Workers pay 6.2 percent of their earnings into the Social Security system."6.2% of 118,000 is 7,1367,136/200,000 = 3.66%Did I screw that up?Oh, yes, I see. At first glance it read like 6.2% of the first 118k, and 3.66% of any amount from 118k to 200k.So the marginal social security tax rate above 118k is zero, is what you're saying. That's quite a good deal.What's a good deal? The fact that there is some income not subjected to full maximum taxation? Woohoo, great deal. I guess I should be happy they don't just take it all (as the song goes)I know I'm not gonna convince you of anything but... still replying.Let's say hypothetically Bob makes $138,000 and Joe makes $20,000. Joe's paying in $1,200. Bob's paying $7,316. Joe has $18,800 leftover. Bob has $130,684 leftover (yes, I know there are other taxes). To Joe that $1,200 he just paid in might mean he can afford to go to the dentist or a doctor or keep his car on the road. To Bob it's not vital for survival. Bob can easily afford to pay another $1,200 and what Bob's losing isn't causing him to be one step away from disaster. This is kind of how I see it. If Joe should have to pay 6.2%, so should Bob. His $1,200 is a lot more vital for survival than Bob's $7,326 or even $8,526, and he's paying it. Now there is an argument in there for earning that much money based on hard work and skills and all that. I can see that argument and agree with it to an extent. But if I see 2 people working 40 hours a week from age 22-70 or 18-70, I don't see one of them as being worth 7 times more than the other as a human being. That's why I'm okay with people who make more money paying more taxes. With SS the people earning more should at least pay the SAME proportion. I don't necessarily disagree with much of that. My point is, why are we focused on taking more dollars from Bob when the primary problem seems to be Sam (who is taking the money from both of them) who apparently is mismanaging the funds. And we can't ignore the other amounts also being taken and the proportional disparity. If it is fair to take the same proportion for social security, when that means taking more from Bob, then shouldn't the other taxes being taken also be in the same proportion? Joe is basically paying zero percent on his remaining $18,000 while Bob is paying 30some percent on his 130. It's fair one way but not the other? At what point do should we stop looking at the percentages and start considering how many total dollars are being taken from Bob and subsequently wasted by Sam? BTW, I agree with you that both Bob and Joe are of equal value as human beings and both are deserving of receiving equal distributions from the program. What if there are enough Bobs but Sam screws it up? Is the solution always just to take more from Bob? What happens when there are more Joes than Bobs?

I don't know what you're asking or if you're replying to me but I just googled it before posting.The cap is $118,000 and "You contribute 6.2 percent of your income. Workers pay 6.2 percent of their earnings into the Social Security system."6.2% of 118,000 is 7,1367,136/200,000 = 3.66%Did I screw that up?Oh, yes, I see. At first glance it read like 6.2% of the first 118k, and 3.66% of any amount from 118k to 200k.So the marginal social security tax rate above 118k is zero, is what you're saying. That's quite a good deal.What's a good deal? The fact that there is some income not subjected to full maximum taxation? Woohoo, great deal. I guess I should be happy they don't just take it all (as the song goes)

Why aren't we questioning the efficiency of the system rather than simply saying more, more more? If I had been in control of my social security money, there would be enough to provide a real retirement income for myself and probably 5 others. Why do we accept that it's okay for our government to turn that into a crappy pittance for about 4 people?

We can agree on that. The song Tax Man by SRV comes to mind.