Mel Kiper on Nebraska

[redwine65]

Totally agree with this. At the same time, this can happen within the church and denominations as well. I took issue with you not recognizing that, by definition at least, a person who claims to be Catholic is also Christian. sure it's more Han just saying it. It's more than just sitting your butt in a pew. You have to believe in your heart that you are a sinner in need of a savior. Many believe this outside of the church. But I would be willing to bet my entire fortune that many within the church, denominations even, also believe this, as a direct result of their time spent in the church. To say what you said rubbed me wrong.

That is all.

I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.[1]

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6]

III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.[7]

IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible.[8] And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.[9]

V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;[10] and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.[11]Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.[12]

VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ.[13]

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

 

[Thor4NU]

Haven't checked on this thread since page 1...what the heck happened????

 

[TheLiberalHunter]

He's a mixed bag as far as what his policies might actually look like. In terms of "populist" comments, it's apples and oranges. I will agree that Sanders is running on a populist message, but his focus is on wealth/income/fiscal issues.

Trump, on the other hand, is being called populist when he says things that basically would get you sent to HR if you said them in an office building. His "populist" statements are about demographics and why you can't trust them. There happen to be a lot of people who agree with him, but I don't think he would have any success as a Dem trying to keep Muslims and Mexicans out of the country.

Hey Beav...I had made a statement that I meant to pose as a question...I can't think of a single instance where a Country has taxed itself into prosperity.

Can you?

I can find instances where it has caused issues, though.

 

[TheLiberalHunter]

Haven't checked on this thread since page 1...what the heck happened????

in the infamous words of Inigo Montoya..Let me explain...no..let me summarize!

Some Liberals got offended by my Screen name. OkeyDokeyNU made a comment and I posed some very basic questions back with no answer. I can only surmise he/she opted to take the Cersei Walk of Shame back to the kiddie pool instead of answer.

Beav and I had a respectful exchange on positions that continues.

Sparky said he is watching to make sure all play nice.

A truthful post was made about Kiper's hair.

That brings you up to speed.

 

[Bill_Callahan2.0]

Haven't checked on this thread since page 1...what the heck happened????

Hahaha, I thought the exact same thing.

 

[dockentwo]

I'm not a Trump supporter but I won't ever vote for Hillary. I was already put in a predicament like this when Bill Clinton ran the first time because I voted for Ross Perot. And it's the likes of me that helped get Bill Clinton elected. I won't be making that same mistake again so I will vote for Trump. Because anything short of that will be a vote for Hillary.

Perot thing; seemed to play a lot of people.

 

[TheBeav815]

Hey Beav...I had made a statement that I meant to pose as a question...I can't think of a single instance where a Country has taxed itself into prosperity.

Can you?

I can find instances where it has caused issues, though.

That's a loaded statement. Pretty much all countries collect taxes, so has any nation that is prospering "Taxed itself into prosperity"? By that same token, has any struggling nation "Taxed itself to death"?

But to answer your question with a question, what are your thoughts on this graph as compared to what we know about how the U.S. was doing in that stretch from the late 40s through the 60s?

 

[SnohomishRed]

That's a loaded statement. Pretty much all countries collect taxes, so has any nation that is prospering "Taxed itself into prosperity"? By that same token, has any struggling nation "Taxed itself to death"?

But to answer your question with a question, what are your thoughts on this graph as compared to what we know about how the U.S. was doing in that stretch from the late 40s through the 60s?

I think much of this debate and peoples view is being shaped by the political establishment and their lackeys in the media

Camp one - Tax the rich and redistribute the wealth - By its very nature this has been shown to not work - Where does it stop? you start with the one percent, when that is not enough how far down the ladder does it go. If you are going to take my money I work tireless for and went to school to have the opportunity to make and give it to some lazy person who is content to just take, I have a real problem with that. I have no problem helping someone in need but its a slippery slope - I believe people lose self respect by going on Government assistance so by helping you are in fact hurting. Being poor is not supposed to be fun or enjoyable, that is one of the main driving factors for people to work hard to get out of poverty

Camp two - Minimal taxes and do not tax the rich anymore - the thought has always been that if the rich have money that filters down to everyone else. I think that is no longer the case. markets have been manipulated by the Fed reserve and politicians to a point where the money itself is making money and it goes no where. CEO's realize the stock price and their bonus will soar by cutting costs rather than growing the business. So jobs are lost and/or moved over seas and the normal person has less cash and hence they buy less things that again validates the stock price. So large investors with a ton of cash make money but that monery goes to a select few - How many cars and houses can one person buy? not many in the grand scheme so again the money is not redistributed

The answer and blame lays at the feet of the ruling political class - they no longer have any desire to help people their only motivation is to stay in power. So common sense laws and leadership simply is not happening. The only check on this is to no longer vote career politicians into office. Forget whether they are democrat or republican make these people understand they only serve at our sufferance and cannot just say anything to get your vote they must actually follow through

 

[TheBeav815]

I think much of this debate and peoples view is being shaped by the political establishment and their lackeys in the media

Camp one - Tax the rich and redistribute the wealth - By it very nature this has been shown to not work - Where does it stop you start with the one percent, when that is not enough how far down the ladder does it go. If you are going to take my money I work tireless for and went to school to have the opportunity to make and give it to some lazy person who is content to just take, I have a real problem with that. I have no problem helping someone in need but its a slippery slope - I believe people lose self respect by going on Government assistance so by helping you are in fact hurting. Being poor is not supposed to be fun or enjoyable, that is one of the main driving factors for people to work hard to get out of poverty

Camp two - Minimal taxes and do not tax the rich anymore - the thought has always been that if the rich have money that filters down to everyone else. I think that is no longer the case. markets have been manipulated by the Fed reserve and politicians to a point where the money itself is making money and it goes no where. CEO's realize the stick price and their bonus will soar by cutting costs rather than growing the business. So jobs are lost and moved over seas and the normal person has less cash and hence they buys less things that again validates the stock price. So large investors with a ton of cash make money but that monery goes to a select few - How many cars and houses can one person buy? not many in the grand scheme so again the money is not redistributed

The answer and blame lays at the feet of the ruling political class - they no longer have any desire to help people their only motivation is to stay in power. So common sense laws and leadership simply is not happening. The only check on this is to no longer vote career politicians into office. Forget whether they are democrat or republican make these people understand they only serve at our sufferance and cannot just say anything to get your vote they must actually follow through

Those are not, and should not be, the only camps. And that, IMO, is exactly the problem. They've become the only two camps that get talked about. People think either rewarding or punishing rich people is the key to everything. It's not about that.

The point of raising tax rates on higher earners is to generate more tax revenue. It's not to make poverty miraculously disappear for the first time in history. HOWEVER, along with that, you have to have spending balance. And that's the real problem with the U.S. right now is that we wanna spend what we wanna spend and then talk about taxes like they're the real key. Minnesota is a good example of handling this properly. They raised tax rates and they've spent, BUT they are also running a surplus. My home state of IL, on the other hand, has spent decades writing checks it can't cash and far outspent its already-high tax rates. Which is every bit as stupid as when Kansas did the reverse by slashing so much revenue they couldn't pay for the stuff they already had. Turns out when you stop collecting taxes from people, they don't just offer you some extra out of sheer gratitude.

What I want to see is more revenue AND less spending. Particularly on unwinnable foreign wars. I also want a drastic overhaul of the corporate tax code that results in a moderate tax rate that they all actually effing pay. Presently they cry publicly about the high rates and quietly work myriad loopholes so that many of them have a negative effective tax rate.

The evidence is not there to support the notion that asking people to pay their taxes will make them leave for whatever place won't make them pay their taxes. Some will do that. Some will not. Spoiler alert: The ones who want to do that so badly are going to do it anyhow, and we'll never have the lowest taxes in the world. So perhaps they should put up or shut up and we shouldn't pay them for the privilege of their booking billions in profit.

 

[SnohomishRed]

Those are not, and should not be, the only camps. And that, IMO, is exactly the problem. They've become the only two camps that get talked about. People think either rewarding or punishing rich people is the key to everything. It's not about that.

The point of raising tax rates on higher earners is to generate more tax revenue. It's not to make poverty miraculously disappear for the first time in history. HOWEVER, along with that, you have to have spending balance. And that's the real problem with the U.S. right now is that we wanna spend what we wanna spend and then talk about taxes like they're the real key. Minnesota is a good example of handling this properly. They raised tax rates and they've spent, BUT they are also running a surplus. My home state of IL, on the other hand, has spent decades writing checks it can't cash and far outspent its already-high tax rates. Which is every bit as stupid as when Kansas did the reverse by slashing so much revenue they couldn't pay for the stuff they already had. Turns out when you stop collecting taxes from people, they don't just offer you some extra out of sheer gratitude.

What I want to see is more revenue AND less spending. Particularly on unwinnable foreign wars. I also want a drastic overhaul of the corporate tax code that results in a moderate tax rate that they all actually effing pay. Presently they cry publicly about the high rates and quietly work myriad loopholes so that many of them have a negative effective tax rate.

The evidence is not there to support the notion that asking people to pay their taxes will make them leave for whatever place won't make them pay their taxes. Some will do that. Some will not. Spoiler alert: The ones who want to do that so badly are going to do it anyhow, and we'll never have the lowest taxes in the world. So perhaps they should put up or shut up and we shouldn't pay them for the privilege of their booking billions in profit.

While you indicate spending is a problem you also state more tax revenue must be generated those two go together for politicians like oil and water - The more revenue generated the more that will be spent when have you seen your taxes go down. Even in the midst of the great recession tax revenue went up not down. So by saying its not big deal we will just tax the rich you will not be affected and they deserve it because they are cheating us. Just wait once that money is used up they will come after more at some point you will be paying it, unless of course if you are on Government assistance and beholding to the government because they support you

 

[TheBeav815]

While you indicate spending is a problem you also state more tax revenue must be generated those two go together for politicians like oil and water - The more revenue generated the more that will be spent when have you seen your taxes go down. Even in the midst of the great recession tax revenue went up not down. So by saying its not big deal we will just tax the rich you will not be affected and they deserve it because they are cheating us. Just wait once that money is used up they will come after more at some point you will be paying it, unless of course if you are on Government assistance and beholding to the government because they support you

Slippery slope fallacy. That's as unfair as if I were to characterize businesses as solely and unilaterally wanting to maximize profit and to seek always (if not first) to suppress employee wages except for executives in order to slash overhead and beef up margins. You and I could both find examples of times those things have happened, but it's not a reason it must happen.

Where I'm fully on board with Sanders is when he asserts that nothing is going to change until millions of people stop bending over and taking it. Rather than grumble that it's always going to be this way, we could take an active role in demanding a balanced budget.

Instead we've been taught to fight each other over wedge issues that have next to nothing to do with where the money is actually going.

 

[NikkiSixx]

The balanced budget thing is a lie.. when you are the worlds reserve currency, you can print money out of thin air to pay those bills. Yes the currency will become inflated, but inflation is worlds better than deflation. We don't need to balance the budget at all. It's just some BS that has been sold to the general public, who don't understand it because they cannot print their own money.

 

[TheBeav815]

The balanced budget thing is a lie.. when you are the worlds reserve currency, you can print money out of thin air to pay those bills. Yes the currency will become inflated, but inflation is worlds better than deflation. We don't need to balance the budget at all. It's just some BS that has been sold to the general public, who cannot print their own money.

Well, as we saw with mortgages, you don't *need* to have real money anywhere until all of a sudden somebody demands a bunch of real money and everyone who has been playing hot potato with a bunch of pretend transactions starts scrambling to get out from under it.

 

[SnohomishRed]

Slippery slope fallacy. That's as unfair as if I were to characterize businesses as solely and unilaterally wanting to maximize profit and to seek always (if not first) to suppress employee wages except for executives in order to slash overhead and beef up margins. You and I could both find examples of times those things have happened, but it's not a reason it must happen.

Where I'm fully on board with Sanders is when he asserts that nothing is going to change until millions of people stop bending over and taking it. Rather than grumble that it's always going to be this way, we could take an active role in demanding a balanced budget.

Instead we've been taught to fight each other over wedge issues that have next to nothing to do with where the money is actually going.

Living in the state of Washing there is a perfect example of how the political system is subverting your vote as a citizen - This guy named Eyman has been putting together referendums for public vote for many years. Reducing car tabs, curtailing new taxes and such most get passed by a public vote. The latest which was to curb real estate taxes was passed then as with most of the bills was deemed unconstitutional by the state supreme court for some type of technicality. It was obvious what the public wanted it was and is also obvious the politicians do not want this and guess who wins.

So to pretend that politicians do not want to keep increasing taxes and increase spending is to ignore what has actually been happening for along period of time. Now everyone of those guys will lie directly to your face when they want your vote " I will cut taxes, or ( tax someone else) and I will balance the budget" the times they have actually shown anything fiscally responsible however can be counted on one hand or maybe a couple of fingers.

Politicians tax and spend that is what keeps them in power

 

[SnohomishRed]

Well, as we saw with mortgages, you don't *need* to have real money anywhere until all of a sudden somebody demands a bunch of real money and everyone who has been playing hot potato with a bunch of pretend transactions starts scrambling to get out from under it.

The US mortgage system worked exactly how it was supposed to work - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created to provide liquidity to banks to allow more people to buy homes. These entities were implicitly guaranteed by the US treasury. When a 100 year event happened and they went bust the US stepped in and kept them in business. All the monies that that was lent to them has been repaid over three years ago. They still remain in government control because they generating profit which goes directly into the treasury ( ie another Tax)

 

[NikkiSixx]

Well, as we saw with mortgages, you don't *need* to have real money anywhere until all of a sudden somebody demands a bunch of real money and everyone who has been playing hot potato with a bunch of pretend transactions starts scrambling to get out from under it.

Well I would just say this.. those countries that cannot just print more money, they are actually the ones in a real bind when someone demands payment.

It is true that you don't want to just let it run amok and out of control, but the last thing we want to do as a country is tie our arms behind our back like those other countries who can't print.

You have a lot of people used to making wages and paying bills, and naturally they think their system should apply because it's only 'right'. But ordinary people don't have the tools that the government has. It's much more complex and if you make a balanced budget law, that law will trash the economy. People are applying financial principles from a personal type of environment to a government type of environment, and they are very different things.

 

[huskerfan1414]

Slippery slope fallacy. That's as unfair as if I were to characterize businesses as solely and unilaterally wanting to maximize profit and to seek always (if not first) to suppress employee wages except for executives in order to slash overhead and beef up margins. You and I could both find examples of times those things have happened, but it's not a reason it must happen.

Where I'm fully on board with Sanders is when he asserts that nothing is going to change until millions of people stop bending over and taking it. Rather than grumble that it's always going to be this way, we could take an active role in demanding a balanced budget.

Instead we've been taught to fight each other over wedge issues that have next to nothing to do with where the money is actually going.

I might be misreading what you are writing, but just so we're all clear: You support Bernie and want to take an active role in demanding a balanced budget? Am I getting that wrong? I could be..but if not...
What are you smoking? This is the guy who cannot answer simple questions about where the money is going to come from for his 19 trillion dollars worth of plans. Here are his talking points:
1) Tax the millionaires and billionaires
2) Wall street is stealing from us
3) Break up the big banks

Basically it...but he never gets into details about how he's actually going to do these things. And you know what? It's on purpose. Bernie Sanders tax plan he admits is just the beginning, and guess who's taxes go up? EVERYBODYS. Look at taxfoundation.org. Not the "millionaires aind billionaires" obama and him keep talking about...people don't realize that the top 1 percent has a lot more than just millionaires and billionaires...and even if you taxed the top 1 percent at 100 percent of their income you can't come close to paying for what Bernie wants to do.

But what really gets me when everyone starts talking about making the rich pay their fair share is....what is "fair share"? Because if you use mathematics, they are paying more than their fair share. So we have to base it off what that guy simply thinks. Who is he to decide? And as was established before, we CANNOT tax our way out of our current spending as it is mathematically impossible. It boggles my mind that politicians can tell us about how the rich need to pay more, but they turn around and spend money and go into debt at levels we've never seen before. Ever. People, newsflash: THEY DON'T CARE about budget or raising money. They want power and they know that class envy and warfare is going to get people like Obama and Bernie votes, as if taxing the crap out of "millionaires and billionaires" is going to somehow make everyone's lives better.

We need to cut social security and get our entitlements in order, re-visit military spending, stop sending other countries our money, gut and get rid of Obamacare, and simplify the tax code with less deductions but flatter rates that promote prosperity and spending. What we DON'T need to do is elect some crazy socialist or a criminal who don't have a clue about anything regarding economics other than "THEY STOLE IT! TAX THE RICH!"