Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


jon_mx last won the day on July 5 2019

jon_mx had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

7,681 Excellent

About jon_mx

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

28,402 profile views
  1. Medium household income is an appropriate measure. I put much less weight into wealth inequity. It can be bad if too extreme. But rewarding success is great. You may hate the wealth how insanely rich Jeff Bezos is, but he made shopping for goods so much faster and easier. And a lot of it was because he had incentives to improve and improve what he was doing. If the system said, well you earned your $10 million you are done, we would never have the Amazons or Apple or Microsoft. Maybe $50 Billion is too much. And there are issues such as a corporate tax structure which allows Amazon to owe no taxes. We do let them accumulate tons of wealth and pay virtually no taxes. If he paid $25 Billion on his $50 Billion, that would be much better.
  2. Which federal laws protect sexual orientation? Sexual orientation is generally not a protected class on a national level.
  3. Of course they can answer the hypo. The actual testimony may be compelling as she probably has convinced herself those are the fact, but scientifically, some 35-year old memory pulled from the banks of some relatively recent therapy session is about as reliable as a Trump speech.
  4. And what percentage of these conservatives who argue against NN now support this lawsuit? You seem to imply all, but it is probably much closer to zero.
  5. How would Democratic lawyers respond to this poll? Take the parties out of it. Let's just say we have a lifelong well respected judge who has zero record or even reports of any type of improprieties in his entire career. We have an accuser who comes forward on the eve on of a Supreme Court confirmation with some 35-plus year old accusation, which she is uncertain of the year or month or location, which every person she names including her long-time friend can not even recall such a party, a story which was coordinated with political operatives and conveniently leaked at the very last moment, from a person who confided to her lawyer it was politically motivated to protect abortion rights.....what conclusion would most lawyers reach about the accused purposely lying and the alleged victim telling the truth? I would hope very few could conclude he is purposely lying.
  6. Are 'they'? Who are they? Everyone who argued against net neutrality support's Prager U's silly lawsuit? Can you prove this? Of course no one here calls out your completely unsupported assertions. How far did it go? It got thrown out at every level. Anyone can file and appeal. Where have right-leaning org's taken a stance on this?
  7. If 100 Democrats were polled, the results would be very similar. Also interesting how people vastly underestimate the level of partisanship double-standards they employ when judging circumstances.
  8. That was the rule until 2017. The worst record allowed in history of the NIT has been one game above .500, i think 16-15. The NCAA gives bids to conference tournament champions, so they have had sub .500 teams qualify.
  9. It is kind of too bad Maryland won. It would have been interesting to see the final standings in the Big Ten with about 6 teams tied for first with seven losses. Six losses and an outright championship is still possible.
  10. They could be the first sub .500 team to make the NIT. The rules were changed to allow it, but it has not happened yet.
  11. There is no one kind of theory which works always. There is a time and place for both supply side and demand side economics. Our system is far from broke. We have a thriving middle class. The average wealth of a retiree in this country is over $750K. We have low unemployment and solid growth. To characterize that as broken is bizarre. That said, our current balance is not optimal. There are lots of things I would fix. I would reduce all kinds of government spending and get it under control, including defense spending. I would probably go back to tax rates closer to what we had under Clinton. I am fine raising minimum wage up to about $10. Of course skilled workers who are productive should be earning a wage they can live comfortably on. But that is not all people. Unskilled inexperience workers should be earning less and have something to strive for. You just can't give people what they need. You must have the Capitalistic incentives to propel people to become productive members of society. The socialistic policies can only be a check for abuses and a safety net for a small minority. To propose socialistic policies as the answer for economic growth and opportunity completely ignores human nature. I don't think combine state and federal marginal income tax rates should ever exceed 50%. Budget deficits should be held under 2% of GDP except for extraordinary circumstances, such as war or a serious recession.
  12. Increases in wages leads to more expensive labor which reduces the demand for labor and thus opportunity. A minimum wage job, even one which is not a 'living wage', creates opportunity to advance. Making unskilled jobs pay a living wage actually discourages the need to obtain skills which is the real key to economic growth and opportunity. Unfortunately, human nature is to do the least possible to get by comfortably. This is why real Marxism/socialism fails time and time again. Not saying there is not some benefit to having a minimum wage, but it needs to be set at a level which is both fair and encourages the need to obtain more skills to advance to a living wage level job. Raw capitalism is not the answer, but the base of the economy needs to be based on capitalistic principles to thrive. If by disenfranchised you mean underpreviledged, certainly I have been. I was raised by a single mom who had varied jobs from school bus driver to a food line factory worker. We were well below the poverty level especially during periods of her being laid off and on food stamps. I had been mistakenly identified and arrested by police. But I still recieved an education and have been successful. Social programs and socialistic economic policies have their place, but never in history have they been the backbone of a successful economy. It is always capitalism which is the key engine.
  13. Disenfranchised means being denied some rights. In the context of your statement you fail to defined what rights you are talking about nor do you even remotely explain how a higher wage fixes that. Somehow you make this huge leap that you raise minimum wage and then magically higher paying jobs are available for everyone and everyone works harder to get more. The left mocked Reagan for voodoo economics, but what you describe is the ultimate in voodoo economics.
  14. Everyone is conflating them. I have seen MSM articles declaring Bernie is not a Socialist. Others saying Bernie is not a Communist. The debate here seems to center around between what is a Socialist Democrat vs. what is a Democratic Socialist. They are just spun up terms which can mean all kinds of stuff. As Bernie describes what he means, it is pretty clear he strongly adheres to Marxist beliefs and is not a believer of a capitalistic economic system. Bernie is not clear how he accomplishes his goals, so who knows what technical definition he falls in. Bernie just offers the initial steps to his undefined utopia end goals.
  15. I have no idea what you even mean by disenfranchised in this context. Nor does it make sense how raising minimum wage changes whatever it is you are talking about. Raising minimum wages does not provide skills or education or new jobs or citizenship or whatever you seem to be meaning. If anything it reduces the number of jobs and encourages automation. Seems like a nice word that sounds good.