Browns General Discussion

[Thomas5737]

2 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Some of these mfers have net worths of 100 million plus.  
 

Any industry, and that’s exactly what this is, that can make a man generational wealth isn’t some charity for the good of others.  Certainly not one that needs tax exemptions.

 

 

You're talking about the 1%. Most aren't wealthy and they should preach that wealth is a sin because their book says so.

 

But yeah, the rich evangelists should certainly be taxed, it shouldn't be based on the profession if you aren't practicing what you preach and that can be dictated on finances. Making anything more than the average salary where you preach would determine that. Any attempt to evade would be would be a felony.

 

That said, anyone who knows for sure whether or not it's all in vain probably shouldn't have a vote in it. 

[brownie man]

This is a deep Dline class

its 4 rounds deep

If Zay Flower or Jalin Hyatt were to be there in the 2nd round I’d take one of them and Dline rest of the way

If one of them isn’t there I might trade down into the third and get more picks

this class has serious Dline depth 

if you don’t need a number 1 pass rusher it’s got every other skill set 

[dawgdish]

7 hours ago, brownie man said:

If one of them isn’t there I might trade down into the third and get more picks

Berry gonna trade him and Stefanski down right out of a job if we don't get a couple impact guys for this year at positions of need

[MWil23]

10 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

If it’s taken legally then I’m pretty sure it’s not stolen.  You’re a cop, you should know this kinda stuff 😂.

Not all constitutional amendments are a good thing. The 16th, for example, sucks. That said, I could live with it if Congress and executives weren't literally STEALING from social security constantly. You make people pay into it and then "borrow it" without permission of the people to push your political agenda to bail out corporations and pay for intervention conflicts or give out to other countries. If an individual does it, you're thrown in prison for fraud, embezzlement, or theft. If a business does it, they're savvy. If the government does it, they're allowed to.

[MWil23]

8 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

10 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Some of these mfers have net worths of 100 million plus.  
 

Any industry, and that’s exactly what this is, that can make a man generational wealth isn’t some charity for the good of others.  Certainly not one that needs tax exemptions.

 

 

Expand  

You're talking about the 1%. Most aren't wealthy and they should preach that wealth is a sin because their book says so.

A few things here:

1. My dad was a pastor and made peanuts with basically zero health care or retirement/other benefits.

2. Tax those frauds who exploit people, most of them aren't real believers IMO

3. The Bible does talk about the LOVE of money being the root of all evil, but there's also nothing wrong with wealth in and of itself.

8 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

But yeah, the rich evangelists should certainly be taxed, it shouldn't be based on the profession if you aren't practicing what you preach and that can be dictated on finances. Making anything more than the average salary where you preach would determine that. Any attempt to evade would be would be a felony.

 

That said, anyone who knows for sure whether or not it's all in vain probably shouldn't have a vote in it. 

 

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

8 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

You're talking about the 1%. Most aren't wealthy and they should preach that wealth is a sin because their book says so.

Those individuals are absolutely the 1%, but there are a lot of other churches who aren’t preaching to a couple dozen people and making inconsequential money.  

8 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

But yeah, the rich evangelists should certainly be taxed, it shouldn't be based on the profession if you aren't practicing what you preach and that can be dictated on finances.
 

Agreed.

8 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

Making anything more than the average salary where you preach would determine that. Any attempt to evade would be would be a felony.

It’s not even just the salary. Private jets, extravagant homes, etc.

https://nypost.com/2021/12/17/kenneth-copeland-wealthiest-us-pastor-lives-on-7m-tax-free-estate/

I realize he’s an exception, but three should be no exceptions.

 

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

8 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Not all constitutional amendments are a good thing. The 16th, for example, sucks. That said, I could live with it if Congress and executives weren't literally STEALING from social security constantly. You make people pay into it and then "borrow it" without permission of the people to push your political agenda to bail out corporations and pay for intervention conflicts or give out to other countries. If an individual does it, you're thrown in prison for fraud, embezzlement, or theft. If a business does it, they're savvy. If the government does it, they're allowed to.

This is all a completely separate discussion.  My point was simply it’s not stealing if they’re legally permitted and expected to do so.  
 

But if not for taxes nothing gets paid for.  Unless we’re now entrusting private corporations to do the right thing.

[MWil23]

2 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

This is all a completely separate discussion.  My point was simply it’s not stealing if they’re legally permitted and expected to do so.  
 

My follow up was that they're been stealing from Americans for years and we're allegedly 10 years from social security "running out of money" and desperately needing a fix. That's literally theft...taking money without consent.

2 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

But if not for taxes nothing gets paid for.  

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

I hate to break it to you, but nothing is getting paid for now as is. We're a cool $31+ Trillion in debt with over $22 Trillion in Social Security liability. Literally theft.

2 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Unless we’re now entrusting private corporations to do the right thing.

LOL, of course not. Here's a thought though...perhaps a happy medium? The $94K+ debt per citizen wouldn't fly for individuals, why would it for the government?

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

24 minutes ago, dawgdish said:

Berry gonna trade him and Stefanski down right out of a job if we don't get a couple impact guys for this year at positions of need

I mean Emerson was taken as a result of a trade down last year and was fantastic.  
 

If you’re expecting a second round rookie to be the savior of this team, I’ve got some bad news for you.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

8 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

My follow up was that they're been stealing from Americans for years and we're allegedly 10 years from social security "running out of money" and desperately needing a fix. That's literally theft...taking money without consent.

Then tax some rich bastards and end corporate welfare and fund it so it doesn’t run out 🤷‍♂️. 

8 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

I hate to break it to you, but nothing is getting paid for now as is. We're a cool $31+ Trillion in debt with over $22 Trillion in Social Security liability. Literally theft.

What is the real world relevance of this?  Is someone going to repossess Florida?  😜 

8 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

LOL, of course not. Here's a thought though...perhaps a happy medium? The $94K+ debt per citizen wouldn't fly for individuals, why would it for the government?

Define happy medium.  Can’t repay debt without income, which requires taxes.  You’re pointing to a problem but feel the only solution is theft.  How else do you fix it?

If your point is that we can tighten the belts spending wise, ok.  But where and how?  As long as someone has to see a profit at every turn along the way, every project is going to have a bloated bottom line and be financially inefficient.  And if we don’t make sure everyone gets their pockets lined then buh gawd we’re communists 

The way to reduce costs efficiently is to remove profit from the equation along the way and just pay for labor and goods.  But that’s a no-no here.

[MWil23]

2 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Then tax some rich bastards and end corporate welfare and fund it so it doesn’t run out 🤷‍♂️. 

Or, and hear me out...have a balanced budget. It doesn't have to be "one or the other". 

Right now, the Stone Cold vs. The Rock posturing about tax breaks for corporations vs. taxing the rich and then also literally stealing money from social security is a disaster.

2 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

What is the real world relevance of this?  Is someone going to repossess Florida?  😜 

The real world relevance of forcing over 90% of Americans to pay into a "retirement pension plan" that you then steal from, and then admittedly say is within 10 years of totally running out of money and collapsing? Those real world implications?

2 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Define happy medium.  Can’t repay debt without income, which requires taxes.  You’re pointing to a problem but feel the only solution is theft.  How else do you fix it?

I'm not anti-tax completely, albeit memeing is fun. Literally every person and entity on the planet has a budget. You balance it, pretty simple. Even good ol' Slick Willy back in the 90s could figure it out, and that guy was a snakeoil salesman.

2 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

If your point is that we can tighten the belts spending wise, ok.  But where and how?  As long as someone has to see a profit at every turn along the way, every project is going to have a bloated bottom line and be financially inefficient.  And if we don’t make sure everyone gets their pockets lined then buh gawd we’re communists 

The way to reduce costs efficiently is to remove profit from the equation along the way and just pay for labor and goods.  But that’s a no-no here.

We spend an incredible amount on the military, we spend an incredible amount and give money away to other countries, we waste copious amounts of money in a variety of avenues. That whole "yeah but it's just a drop in the bucket" argument really adds up after a while.

Sure, some things should 100% be valued as "investments in the future" instead of expenses, such as education, smaller interest rate loans for college, universal preschool, etc.

People can say what they want, but one of the biggest reasons our country exists is because of rebelling over taxation. If you don't believe me, go back and look at the list of grievances on the Declaration of Independence.

Let me say this:

I have yet to see any civilization in the history of mankind spend their way/take on debt in a way to get themselves/spend themselves out of economic issues.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

22 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Or, and hear me out...have a balanced budget. It doesn't have to be "one or the other". 

Right now, the Stone Cold vs. The Rock posturing about tax breaks for corporations vs. taxing the rich and then also literally stealing money from social security is a disaster.

Yes.

22 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

The real world relevance of forcing over 90% of Americans to pay into a "retirement pension plan" that you then steal from, and then admittedly say is within 10 years of totally running out of money and collapsing? Those real world implications?

Again the issue is easily resolved just by funding it.  They’ll posture and position over this just like they do the debt ceiling but it’s never not gonna get resolved. 
 

22 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

I'm not anti-tax completely, albeit memeing is fun.
 

Then taxation isn’t wrong or theft, we’re just discussing where you draw the line.

22 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Literally every person and entity on the planet has a budget. You balance it, pretty simple. Even good ol' Slick Willy back in the 90s could figure it out, and that guy was a snakeoil salesman.

I think the idea of a balanced budget is great, but that means cutting programs that are likely already underfunded as well as increasing taxes.  

22 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

We spend an incredible amount on the military,

Military and police are just about the only social programs I can think of that have “adequate” (different definitions I’m guessing) funding.  
 

I think many on my side of the aisle politically would take the pearl clutching as it relates to spending more seriously if these particular groups didn’t get rubber stamped whatever budgets they want year to year.

22 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

we spend an incredible amount and give money away to other countries,

Yes, but problems over there become problems here quickly. It’s often cheaper to address some things sooner rather than later.  
 

That said, each “team” has their own foreign “mascot”. The folks who complain about money going to Ukraine are often perfectly fine won’t money going to Israel.  And vice versa.  The issue isn’t sending money overseas, it’s where and why you’re sending it tbh.

22 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

we waste copious amounts of money in a variety of avenues. That whole "yeah but it's just a drop in the bucket" argument really adds up after a while.

Absolutely.  But like I said earlier, privatization of everything adds cost up quickly too but that’s never seen as a problem.  Some call it a feature even. 

22 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Sure, some things should 100% be valued as "investments in the future" instead of expenses, such as education, smaller interest rate loans for college, universal preschool, etc.

I’m with ya. 

22 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

People can say what they want, but one of the biggest reasons our country exists is because of rebelling over taxation. If you don't believe me, go back and look at the list of grievances on the Declaration of Independence.

I’ve seen a few movies about it, I’m practically an expert. 

22 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Let me say this:

I have yet to see any civilization in the history of mankind spend their way/take on debt in a way to get themselves/spend themselves out of economic issues.

I don’t think people in my camp are advocating that at all, but conversely I’m not sure we’ve ever seen a complete privatized society succeed either.  

Government is an essential function of society and taxes are how that’s run.  So when people say “taxes are theft” there’s an implication there’s another option which I’ve yet to see.

[MWil23]

11 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Yes.

Again the issue is easily resolved just by funding it.  They’ll posture and position over this just like they do the debt ceiling but it’s never not gonna get resolved. 

The issue is, that money literally should have never been touched by anyone, ever. "Funding it" means not taking from it. Plenty of Americans ARE funding it and it would be/would have been fine if nobody ever touched it.

But as the government, you shouldn't be able to FORCE people to use a system that you then TAKE from without permission. That's really the only point I'm trying to make here.

11 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Then taxation isn’t wrong or theft, we’re just discussing where you draw the line.

Correct

11 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

I think the idea of a balanced budget is great, but that means cutting programs that are likely already underfunded as well as increasing taxes.  

I don't even mean "perfectly balanced" so much as "Dudes, make it close".

11 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Military and police are just about the only social programs I can think of that have “adequate” (different definitions I’m guessing) funding.  

IMO most public universities are doing JUST FINE, as are the FERS programs. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for cutting those programs (many of which for selfish reasons hinted at in the OT thread LOL), but when you have a 4.84% raise with a COLA adjustment of 7.7% for retirees coming off of another 5+% COLA raise in 2021 and a proposed 8.7% this year. While that won't happen, let's evaluate the last 7-8 years:

Year of FAIR Act	Pay Raise Year	Proposed	Actual
2016	2017	5.3%	2.6%
2017	2018	3.2%	1.6%
2018	2019	3.0%	1.9%
2019	2020	3.6%	3.1%
2020	2021	3.5%	1.0%
2021	2022	3.2%	2.7%
2022	2023	5.1%	4.6%
2023	2024	8.7%	???

TL;DR

Civilians are doing just fine. BTW, this is actually the lesser end not including Congress or Air Traffic Controllers.

11 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

I think many on my side of the aisle politically would take the pearl clutching as it relates to spending more seriously if these particular groups didn’t get rubber stamped whatever budgets they want year to year.

Many would. Most wouldn't IMO.

11 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Yes, but problems over there become problems here quickly. It’s often cheaper to address some things sooner rather than later.  

Many on my side of the aisle would say take that pearl clutching as it relates to griping about our involvement in foreign conflicts in the Middle East with those leaders vs. others like Korea and Vietnam where the President seized war power and instituted the draft, not even taking into account Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo

11 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

That said, each “team” has their own foreign “mascot”. The folks who complain about money going to Ukraine are often perfectly fine won’t money going to Israel.  And vice versa.  

100% agreed

11 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

The issue isn’t sending money overseas, it’s where and why you’re sending it tbh.

Agreed to a point. I'd always prioritize domestic issues but as with anything, there's a rationale and line.

11 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Absolutely.  But like I said earlier, privatization of everything adds cost up quickly too but that’s never seen as a problem.  Some call it a feature even. 

I'm not advocating privatization of everything or even government spending so much as where that money comes from, and it shouldn't be from the middle class and/or those paying into a pension retirement system put into place for those desperate with nothing too old to work after the greatest financial collapse in the history of our country.

11 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

I’m with ya. 

I’ve seen a few movies about it, I’m practically an expert. 

I've heard worse arguments

11 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

I don’t think people in my camp are advocating that at all, but conversely I’m not sure we’ve ever seen a complete privatized society succeed either.  

See the above for the point/context.

11 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Government is an essential function of society and taxes are how that’s run.  So when people say “taxes are theft” there’s an implication there’s another option which I’ve yet to see.

I think most of who say that are saying "excessive" taxes are theft. Why should I have to pay taxes on money that's already been taxed? Why should I have to pay a capital gains tax, for example? Why should my retirement money that's already been taxed be taxed again later? If you're going to do that, why are there limits on a ROTH aside from the transparent "Uncle Sam wants his" nature of things.

Common sense taxes, sign me up. When you start de-incentivizing people to work overtime, make extra money, retire early, etc., that's when issues arise.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

3 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

The issue is, that money literally should have never been touched by anyone, ever. "Funding it" means not taking from it. Plenty of Americans ARE funding it and it would be/would have been fine if nobody ever touched it.

I mean, we have an aging population with younger generations not reproducing at the necessary level.  We need to refine funding instead of continuing to do the same things as we did decades ago.  

3 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

But as the government, you shouldn't be able to FORCE people to use a system that you then TAKE from without permission. That's really the only point I'm trying to make here.

The fact they were voted into office is their permission to do so.  We’re back to that 16th amendment.  You’re conflating not liking something with it being theft. 

3 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Correct

I don't even mean "perfectly balanced" so much as "Dudes, make it close".

works for me.

3 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

IMO most public universities are doing JUST FINE, as are the FERS programs. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for cutting those programs (many of which for selfish reasons hinted at in the OT thread LOL), but when you have a 4.84% raise with a COLA adjustment of 7.7% for retirees coming off of another 5+% COLA raise in 2021 and a proposed 8.7% this year. While that won't happen, let's evaluate the last 7-8 years:

Year of FAIR Act	Pay Raise Year	Proposed	Actual
2016	2017	5.3%	2.6%
2017	2018	3.2%	1.6%
2018	2019	3.0%	1.9%
2019	2020	3.6%	3.1%
2020	2021	3.5%	1.0%
2021	2022	3.2%	2.7%
2022	2023	5.1%	4.6%
2023	2024	8.7%	???

TL;DR

Civilians are doing just fine. BTW, this is actually the lesser end not including Congress or Air Traffic Controllers.

Public universities aren’t just publicly funded though.  It’s a combo of public might, tuition  (which is often absurd) and endowments.  
 

As far as the COLA, good for them.  That raises mirrors the actual cost of living a lot more than what most everyone here got  as a “raise” this year. These are they types of increases we should be expecting instead of criticizing imo.

3 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Many would. Most wouldn't IMO.

Many on my side of the aisle would say take that pearl clutching as it relates to griping about our involvement in foreign conflicts in the Middle East with those leaders vs. others like Korea and Vietnam where the President seized war power and instituted the draft, not even taking into account Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo

Don’t forget where I sit.  I’m near the window, not the aisle lol. 
 

Some might even say way out on the wing. 

3 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

100% agreed

Agreed to a point. I'd always prioritize domestic issues but as with anything, there's a rationale and line.

same

3 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

I'm not advocating privatization of everything or even government spending so much as where that money comes from, and it shouldn't be from the middle class and/or those paying into a pension retirement system put into place for those desperate with nothing too old to work after the greatest financial collapse in the history of our country.

I’m not worried about it getting fixed tbh. Take away social security and Medicare and we’re done tbh. 

3 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

I've heard worse arguments

3 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

See the above for the point/context.

I think most of who say that are saying "excessive" taxes are theft. Why should I have to pay taxes on money that's already been taxed? Why should I have to pay a capital gains tax, for example? Why should my retirement money that's already been taxed be taxed again later? If you're going to do that, why are there limits on a ROTH aside from the transparent "Uncle Sam wants his" nature of things.

Because you and I and the rest of the middle class have to pay for everything because we have a large portion of the population that’s worried about billionaire’s tax rates and don’t want to be taxed too much when they’re inevitably rich despite the fact they’re currently a whole lot closer to broke or homeless than they are rich.

3 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Common sense taxes, sign me up. When you start de-incentivizing people to work overtime, make extra money, retire early, etc., that's when issues arise.

You lost me here.  What do you mean?  What’s the de-incentivizing for working OT?

[MWil23]

3 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

I mean, we have an aging population with younger generations not reproducing at the necessary level.  We need to refine funding instead of continuing to do the same things as we did decades ago.  

I agree with this, I'm saying AND DO NOT TAKE FROM IT.

3 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

The fact they were voted into office is their permission to do so.  We’re back to that 16th amendment.  You’re conflating not liking something with it being theft. 

Total disagreement here. It's a government mandate and both parties have done this going on 5 Presidential administrations now. It's not a partisan thing at this point. 

3 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

works for me.

Public universities aren’t just publicly funded though.  It’s a combo of public might, tuition  (which is often absurd) and endowments.  

I'm simply stating that they're doing fine, not saying that they don't deserve reevaluation. Tuition was 400 minimum wage hours in 1980. Today it's over 2400 minimum wage hours. Predatory interest rates with loans are a byproduct of this issue IMO. Fix tuition and you won't need to address the other AS MUCH, albeit you will to some degree.

3 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

As far as the COLA, good for them.  That raises mirrors the actual cost of living a lot more than what most everyone here got  as a “raise” this year. These are they types of increases we should be expecting instead of criticizing imo.

100% agreement, and that was literally my point.

Throw in a basic pension and retirement plan which is as follows:

Age 60:

1% x Your top 3 year average x years of service (EX: $100K x .01 x 20 = $20K a year divided by 12 months and that's your monthly takeaway)

Age 62:

1.1% x Your top 3 year average x years of service (Ex: $100K x .011 x 20 = $22K a year divided by 12 months and that's your monthly takeaway)

Social Security (Do the math specific to you)

401K TSP plan, which matches 5% dollar for dollar.

3 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Don’t forget where I sit.  I’m near the window, not the aisle lol. 
 

Some might even say way out on the wing.

I get that, I'm just using a retort as well as being more towards the window on the other side, so that comment you made earlier means about as much to me as the one I used does to you.  

3 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

 

same

I’m not worried about it getting fixed tbh. Take away social security and Medicare and we’re done tbh. 

What I'm saying is, fixing it starts with not taking from it, most if not all agree on that.

3 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Because you and I and the rest of the middle class have to pay for everything because we have a large portion of the population that’s worried about billionaire’s tax rates and don’t want to be taxed too much when they’re inevitably rich despite the fact they’re currently a whole lot closer to broke or homeless than they are rich.

And here's the rub:

One party claims to be advocates for the middle class while actually helping the rich, all while using social security, medicare, and others as bargaining chips.

One party claims to be advocates for the lower to middle class while actually helping the poor and bailing out the rich, all while banging the "tax the rich" drum.

3 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

You lost me here.  What do you mean?  What’s the de-incentivizing for working OT?

When you earn a certain amount of money by working above/beyond your time and it's then taxed because it bumps you into the next bracket, I take issue with that. The 60 hour weeks I pulled last year would have been financially better if I pulled 40 after tax season. That smarts a bit.