Jump to content

Todd Gack

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    313
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Todd Gack

  1. On 11/5/2019 at 7:35 AM, GreenspointTexas said:

    Kunstler

    Seconded. 

    Weathered Souls has awesome stouts on occasion.  Also hear really good things about Islla Street, but I've yet to try it.  Freetail is above average beer w/ above average pizza and a lot of TVs.

    • Like 1
  2. 23 hours ago, fluff said:

    Curious, what is dustless tile removal running these days?  Getting ready to demo quite a bit at my place...

    Curious about this as well.  We have saltillo, so I can't imagine the havoc of trying to get all the mortar/grout off the concrete without dustless equipment.

  3. 3 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

    Maybe, that's definitely something I'm seeing now that people are worried about. Maybe a silver-lining would be that American workers finally start to realize how much power they should have in the workplace and call this bluff. It's probably more likely there would be a ton of salary changes.

    I'm curious as to what calling the bluff would look like.  More unions?

    I agree on salary changes - I've long thought that my field (engineering) has been artificially inflated over the last 10 years or so.  Never thought I would sniff 100k without a senior PM level title, but there are several co-workers w/ my experience level in the ~110-125k range.  So if Liz gets the nom, I'll have to sell my summer house in the Hamptons after all...

    • Like 1
  4. 17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

    The flat head tax cuts way more into potential pay of low earners than high earners.

    Difference-between-8-Employer-Side-Payro

    The blue line (flat payroll tax) is fine.
    An inverted version of the red line (a progressive payroll tax) would be better than the blue line.
    The red line (head tax) is kind of dumb, but single-payer is so good that even this dumber version of funding is better than the garbage we have now.

    Corporations are going to try and evade any tax, so provisions will need to be built into any funding mechanism to prevent those expected evasions. They can evade Warren's head tax by continuing to do what they already do by releasing their employees to independent contractor status or to small firms (small enough to fall under the 50 threshold Warren plans on). That needs to be accounted for.

    There is no free lunch any way you slice it.

    Warren's financing plan will be better than what we have now and guarantee comprehensive healthcare for everyone. Which is awesome.

    (Also, Bernie has already proposed a 7.5% payroll tax, so as usual Brad is full of shit in his Bernie bashing.)

    If I had to guess, I'd say this is exactly what would happen.  Like, the day after she becomes the nominee.  Corporate board members would immediately assemble and put together packages to release a certain percentage of employees as contractors with the only alternative being they get laid off completely.  But if she somehow gets her numbers right and indeed passes this thing, it has to be considered next-level type legislative brilliance. 

  5. 10 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

    I must be the only person on this thread that believes Trump wins re-election if Sanders is who he’s up against. No offense to Sanders. And of course passionate democratic voter turnout could cause me to be completely wrong.

    Take FWIW, but even a fox poll has Bernie beating trump.  Not that polls are really trustworthy (link shows Biden beating him handily and I think trump would look like the stronger candidate in a debate), but I think Bernie brings back the voters who voted Obama and switched to trump.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-6250.html

  6. 29 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

    Just so I'm clear, are you suggesting 4 against 11 is not a good defensive scheme?

    Give him the benefit of the doubt and say the 3 linebackers will hit the line right before the snap.  So 7 vs 11.  It's so genius, the Kansas OC will never see it coming.

  7. 5 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

    It's because she hasn't officially released a healthcare plan. That would make all the questions go away.  Seems pretty easy to do. 

     

     

     

    Did she not co-sponsor Bernie's bill?  What am I missing here?

  8. 7 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

    How do you buy this complete nonsense? 

     

    It's really the only explanation that makes sense.  If Liz and Bernie know that projections show M4A will actually save people money (as in the amount in additional taxes will be less than the current premiums/deductibles for the VAST majority of Americans), what other reason could they have for not articulating this to everyone watching these debates.  Might it be that some dickface on the trump campaign will clip the soundbite and broadcast through every media outlet that the socialist dems will in FACT raise your taxes to pay for the healthcare of all the dirty mexicans crossing illegally?  Remember the doctored clip of Jim Acosta "assaulting" the press room microphone lady?  Or shit, Hillary's deplorable comment if we want to see how it plays during a campaign?

  9. 3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

    Scroll backwards until you get to the part where the Working Families Party executive board chose Warren and see the parades being thrown about how she's eating Bernie's lunch among progressives.

    But this? Nah this is pointless and meaningless and actually shows how pathetic Bernie is, if you think about it.

    lol

    Like the ACA, Wyden-Bennett would be a radical restructuring of the insurance market. There is transition to cost-controlled universal healthcare that is seamless or painless. Would you disagree? Do you think the transition to Wyden-Bennett (a plan no one is championing and is not being discussed by anyone except you) would be seamless/painless?

    Medicare is an existing program with an existing regulatory infrastructure. What M4A does is simply enroll everyone into it and expand its existing scope of services. The pricing structures are already in place.

    So I think I get why dem candidates avoid talking about the additional costs/taxes to pay for M4A, but have any of them addressed the type of expansion to the infrastructure that will be needed?  Additional staff, social security offices, a more robust cyber security system to avoid fraud to the system, etc.  Seems as if there's an opportunity to say that some jobs (albeit federal jobs only) will be created to offset the loss of jobs in the private insurance sector.  Unless the ratio of jobs lost to gained is ridiculously skewed like 50:1 or something. 

    Plus it may play well with the average Joe to point out that all those insurance execs making millions per year on the backs of sick Americans will soon be unemployed and have to sell their beach houses.

  10. 21 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

    Honest question: is this just a message board thing or are you consistently wrong all of the time in real life too?  Do you try to get into other people's cars by accident when leaving the grocery store?  Do you try to heat your food up by putting it in the washing machine?  Do you walk around all day with shoes on the wrong feet?  Just trying to paint a better picture of who I am dealing with here.

    I'm ashamed to admit that when several days pass with no board activity from the resident trumpkins, I start to hope that they've finally reached the point where they step back and do some introspection to figure out how they've managed to support and defend such a shit individual running a shit administration.  And then zavala will do his random drive-by video propaganda post, or onboard will see the virgin hillary in his tortilla and come back to scream about bengazi or the clinton foundation, or boxofhammers will tell us how all the climate models are wrong, and a little more of my faith in humanity dies.  Someday, I'll tell Lucy to just take her football and fuck off.... someday.

    • Like 6
  11. 19 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

    I’m sorry bullshittery like “shiny objects” and “pocket change” are poll tested zingers.

    They’re shitty and condescending.

    Pete started the back and forth with Beto calling his stance on buybacks a shiny object.

    I’m getting tired of Pete telling everyone what cannot be done because it’s too much.

    And the “pocket change” snark at Warren actually pisses me off more. It’s dismissive and snobby.

    That pocket change is out raising him and his LA fundraisers and $500 selfies.

    Take a seat eat a pussy, Pete.

    fify

  12. 12 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

     

    Know it's a joke but FUCK this bad karma shit for Kirko.  Dude helped us in WVU game, and hope he's healthy for rest of the season.

    Hook 'em  Kirko!!! 🤘

    I actually thought he hit the hole pretty hard on his first two runs.  He brings more of a punch than any other RB on the roster.

    • Like 1
  13. 1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

    This is my new favorite kind of Trump tweet.

    At some point, someone obviously got it into his thick skull that that he can say whatever he wants on Twitter if he quotes one of his minions on Fox News, while having the "I was just quoting someone else!" defense should something ever get back to him.  But lately, since his brain is eating itself, I've noticed a number of tweets where he either forgets to tag the Fox personality, or simply just thinks that putting quotation marks around something is all he needs to do.  Stable genius.

    Forgot the close quote too.  Or did he intentionally add an open quote to confuse people?  4-D chess...

    • Like 1
  14. 1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

    it really isn't though.

    it's about her constantly avoiding answering the tax question.  bold ideas are not new in politics, but they're always followed up with "how are we going to pay for it".  someone as prepared as her knew this question was coming, and she's choosing not to answer it.  anyone questioning it, isn't a "mercenary" or a "republican".

    my concern is this - if liz is "with bernie" on m4a.  and bernie has already answered all the questions, and for obvious reasons, is far more battle-tested on it, then why hasn't liz just come out and answered it in similar fashion, with a similar answer?  the longer she goes without answering - even if she literally parrots bernie's answer - the longer people are going to think there's a reason behind it, and that she might pivot away from her "with bernie" positioning on it.

    i like liz a lot, but it's something i've thought about.  it won't make me like her less, but it's interesting.

    Couple things...

    I don't think she answers primarily to avoid giving right-wing ad companies the 0.5-sec clipped video of her saying "yes..." while cutting out the rest of the answer: "...damn near everyone's taxes will increase, BUT, you'll no longer pay for insurance through your employer and 90+% of all Americans will actually save money annually on health care."

    Secondly, I think she knows that all mainstream media outlets know exactly this, but they're being directed by the healthcare executives (via advertising dollars) to ask these questions framed in a certain way. That being, to make her simply say the word "yes" on video.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...