yyz28

Any playoff plan where some "committee" chooses the 4 schools is BS. It should be based on the rankings which should be based on a formula not unlike the BCS has been in the past (though that needs some tweaking, and quality of wins and loss of Conf. Championship Game has some negative impact, etc) Keep that part of the system basically in tact, and take the top 4 schools. The real bitch with the BCS has seemed to be that there is some argument over which one of two schools should get in. One is usually in without question, and then the second school there is controversy with. Put four in and make 'em play for it eliminates that crap. OSU & Stanford would have been in this year, and that controversy would have been non existent. Ideas get floated all the time. let's see what actually happens and then react to that.

Love the report. REALLY love the BOR agenda.

I don't support a stock fund. Any fund that would replace Social Security in the private sector would have to be diverse. Stocks may be included, but the percentage would be largely driven by your age and proximity to retirement. If there is a fund with actual cash in it the survivors get that benefit. ...and we shouldn't be paying military next of kin via Social Security. That can be done using other systems. Outliving your money is always a concern, but again, not something that couldn't be worked out in the private sector.

This type of thing is SOOOOOO hard to judge at this point. The odds are against a Rookie QB coming in and making an immediate difference or even being half as great at the Pro level as he was at the College level. ...and there are more stories of highly touted QB's that get traded after a year or two by the team who drafted them...

Conservatives would be looking for a way to make good on the promises made to folks near retiring and at the same time be working towards spinning this program down to it's ultimate demise, transferring these responsibilities back to the people with whom it belongs. Building a policy that pushes us back to a privatized retirement program is the only way to ever truly solve this problem. It is likely to be forced on us once the system collapses, which at the current rate, will happen sooner rather than later. ...but if a controlled shutdown is preferred (and it would be by any rational person) a number of strategies, including means testing, would have to be employed. ...So, we don't means test for folks in the system now or near retirement... ...but we do for people who are currently in their 40's and 50's and let them know now so they can plan ahead properly. ...and for the folks in their 20's and 30's, let them opt out entirely. Over time, the system will transition into private funds where there is actually wealth growing instead of some number in some imaginary account somewhere. If I were given the option TODAY to opt out and put my money in private funds, I'd do it with ZERO hesitation. ...if we're going to keep the system, and try to fix it for its long term survival, then I am 100% against means testing. FWIW, this class warfare crap is just that. Usually pushed by the uninformed or the ideologues. Anyone whom continues to argue that the upper 1% who make 16% of the income yet covers 32% of our tax burden isn't paying enough into the system for Social Security or any other program, simply has an axe to grind and isn't interested in what the plain and simple numbers reveal. They will argue for the buffett rule, but not question why "1%'ers" who are for it don't just open up their checkbooks and right the wrong they profess to be against? ...they won't mention to you that the President who is trying to score political points on this issue paid a lower rate than HIS secretary this year. They won't demand that the politician they are supporting and who is arguing this point open up his checkbook to right this social injustice. The federal government has acted in a way with Social Security that would put any other financial manager in prison for the rest of his life. They have stolen the money and spent it rather than invested it as they promised the American People, and as they continue to try and make them think is happening... ...what do you think that annual statement is all about? I don't think the government can be trusted to do the right thing. I don't think the government can fix the problem. I think it will go belly up before any politician has the balls to do something meaningful about it.

Not hypothetical at all. First of all, most people DON'T get that, and polls indicate that. The term TRUST FUND insinuates that there is money in a TRUST FUND as there actually IS money i(or a financial instrument of some time) in ANY other TRUST FUND, you, I or business cares to set up. So, the language is confusing. ...to further make the point that Social Security was "NEVER intended to be a retirement vehicle" is to simply ignore history, as is to argue that the original intent and part of the sales pitch for Social Security is that it would actually be a reserve of cash. Social Security was amended for the first time after passage in 1935 in 1939. One reason for the proposed changes in 1939 was a growing concern over the impact that the reserves created by the 1935 act were having on the economy. The Recession of 1937 was blamed on the government, tied to the abrupt decrease in government spending and the $2 billion that had been collected in Social Security taxes. Benefits became available in 1940 instead of 1942 and changes to the benefit formula increased the amount of benefits available to all recipients in the early years of Social Security. These two policies combined to shrink the size of the reserves. The original Act had conceived of the program as paying benefits out of a large reserve. This Act shifted the conception of Social Security into something of a hybrid system; while reserves would still accumulate, most early beneficiaries would receive benefits on the pay-as-you-go system. Just as importantly, the changes also delayed planned rises in contribution rates. Ironically if these had been left in place they would have come into effect during the wartime boom in wages and would have arguably helped to temper wartime inflation. The amendments established a trust fund for any surplus funds. The managing trustee of this fund is the Secretary of the Treasury. The money could be invested in both non-marketable and marketable securities. The Act was an attempt to limit what were seen as dangers in the modern American life, including old age, poverty, unemployment, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children. Protecting people from Poverty in old age by definition makes Social Security a retirement vehicle. In fact, it encouraged a good deal of elderly employed to retire when benefits became available. The government adopted a unified budget in the Johnson administration in 1968. This change resulted in a single measure of the fiscal status of the government, based on the sum of all government activity. The surplus in Social Security trust funds offsets the total debt, making it appear much smaller than it otherwise would. This allowed Congress to increase spending without having to risk the political consequences of raising taxes. This is when the Government began actively stealing the people's money. ...not to go off on a tangent again, but I find it helpful to understand the history of something if you're going to try to find solutions for it. ...but the solution is rather simple. 1. Allow people in their 20's & 30's to opt out and allow them to choose private investment instruments. (to be regulated, which normally, I hate, but if it would push people into fending for themselves instead of letting big brother take care of them, I'd be for it in this case) 2. Repeal unified budgeting. Force the Government to go back to building reserves on Social Security. 3. Cut Government Spending. Roll it back to any year you wish 2008 or previous. Economy was kicking ass in '97. How bout we go back to 1997 government spending? 4. Repeal the "FICA Tax Holiday" so that we're actually collecting the money going out to social security from those in the program. 5. Raise Full Retirement to 70. Problem solved, government put back into some form of check and personal liberty has been restored. Passes all 3 policy litmus tests for me.

No, I didn't miss your point at all. I understand the hypocrisy. ...but again, there is constitutional language about placing burdens on the ability to vote, not on getting government aide or taking advantage of social programs. As such, while you and I may see the hypocrisy in these arguments, they DO have a leg to stand on constitutionally when arguing against voter id laws. Like I said before, I reject and disagree with their interpretation of the Constitution in this way, but they can whip out and argue the poll tax clause. There is no federal assistance tax clause to get in their way when making policy regarding the distribution of taxpayer funded benefits.

Kram - ...the very title of your post has the biggest misleader of them all when you refer to the nonexistent "Social Security Trust Fund". There is NO SUCH THING. In fact, it isn't that the fund funds out of money in '30 but rather that there simply isn't enough going in to service the amount going out. HAD there actually been a Trust Fund and the money that people were paying in was actually being invested instead of being tossed into the general funds and thus spent, Social Security would be solvent beyond our wildest dreams, and we'd be able to LOWER the retirement age, not make these difficult choices. This is same government who stole the American people's money and spent it on things other than what they were supposed to... ...no way they have the balls to resolve this issue. Plumm - I agree with your feelings about education, but the way to fix it isn't to have the Federal Government reform, but rathe to get them OUT of the business of Education. It has been a downward spiral since the institution of the DOE. TIme to punt on that idea.

KRAM, you KNOW I'm with you on this issue, but this is a faulty comparison; let me explain why. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that even discusses, much less forbids any type of barrier being erected to residents or citizens receiving any type of social or government program. Conversely, while I personally reject that requiring someone to have a valid ID to vote IS a poll tax or an unreasonable barrier to being allowed to vote, there IS language in the constitution regarding this specific matter which may be interpreted in a variety of different ways, depending on the intent of the writer or the political or ideological bent of the person doing the interpreting. ...as a result, attempts to compare the requirement of an ID to vote to requirements to have an ID to do virtually anything else fall somewhat short of intellectual honesty if you fully understand the issue. Just my opinion.

Riiiiiiiiight...

Why? What does this case have to do with gun laws or stand your ground laws? IF Zimmerman was attacked then he had the right to defend himself. If he wasn't, then he's guilty of murder. Done and done. No need to evaluate gun laws or self defense laws. He's either guilty of murder or he isn't. ...unless you don't believe someone should be legally protected if they defend themselves, in which case I don't think we'll find much common ground.

Yup... I agree with this statement 100%.

Classic.

Very sorry to hear this news on Friday. He was a great coach and a class act.

Sweet!

disappointing to see her go, but I understand how it happened. Good luck to her and the Horns... now its time for UNT to take the next step!

I didn't assume anything, I'm simply asking a question. I heard the raw tape today and there is no way you can clearly make out what he said there. The ONLY ONE that I've heard where it even sort of sounds like Coon was one of the enhanced tapes, I think CNN's, though there is so much raw data out on this story now, it's hard to keep up. the very day this broke into the mainstream, MSNBC and CNN were claiming there was a racial slur on this tape. I'm not sure how you heard it before that was being thrown around. The only reason it ever hit the mainstream is BECAUSE of the racial component. Well, we can agree to disagree on that, as I think the evidence leaves the situation surrounding what happened murky at best. ...that being said, if it DID speak for itself, they would run with it, not message it to fit a narrative. My issue here isn't that I'm trying to defend Zimmerman. Rather I'm saying "I don't know what happened. NOBODY really knows what happened. Why is the news media trying to draw conclusions and create a narrative rather than simply report what we do and don't know about the story?" The only possible conclusion I can come up with is the one stated above. Fuel for the race-baiters and ratings. Nothing more. +1 for the fair response... Thanks!

Damn that argument pisses me off. "Well, you should like it if a bunch of Republican Politicians supported it." ...it's the same argument about the debt. A conservative complains about the debt and then has the Bush Administration's run-up of the debt to defend this president's continued run-up of the debt as if conservatives just agree lockstep with every idea to come out of the RNC or from Republican politicians. Let's be clear here... Unconstitutional acts by any branch of government, be it an overstep of bounds by the judiciary, a policy by fiat or executive order from the executive, or a law passed by the legislative are bad and not what a conservative, a TRUE conservative would support by definition. Any more than it is fair for me to paint you with a broad brush and assume that because some politician you've supported in the past did something you didn't agree with that means you now must form your arguments and thoughts within the box of that politician's proposals or policies.

This isn't an attack, but I've gotta ask - When CNN Says that it was "Coon", you believe it. Now that they claim it's really "Cold", you don't? ...and the fact that not ONLY has CNN admitted to this mistake, but now ABC and NBC have had to admit the audio and videos have been doctored, you still buy this is a racially motivated case or crime? The question you have to ask yourself is simple. Why? Why have 3 of the biggest media outlets had to back track or apologize at this point? ...if the evidence supported their coverage of the story and their demonization of George Zimmerman, why doctor the evidence? Even if Zimmerman were a Klansman, he wouldn't be guilty for shooting somebody who was beating him savagely. If Trayvon Martin were a Black Panther, it would still be wrong for Zimmerman to shoot him if he was not defending himself. We are supposed to have blind justice! The racial component here is not supposed to matter. We have a dead teenager. We have a dead American. We have somebody who shot him. We still don't know the details. All we have are a bunch of networks and race hustlers trying to create a stereotype out of this, going so far as the New York Times referring to Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic" just to create the template or the narrative or the whole stereotype, if you will. Race is being injected into this case to enrich the race-baiters, to sell newspapers and to try to enhance a television network audience.

I figured this would be old news here... ...but it is a great ad. Really enjoyed it!

Posts like this make me want to put my head through the wall, as it reminds me of our arguments against the narrow-minded people who were against building Apogee. First, Allen ISD is an exemplary school district based on requirements by the Texas Education Agency. The high school is the second largest in the state with an exemplary rating. Second, the bond issue to build the stadium only after bond money had been spent to improve educational facilities at each and every campus within the district. Third, the bond issue included expanding the high school for a new fine arts center and career center. Fourth, the bond issue was approved by the voters of Allen ISD. If they are scratching their heads, they did not make an informed vote. Fifth, the state of Texas requires bond money to be spent on what the voters approved, in this case a stadium and expansion of the high school. Sixth, by state law and fiduciary responsibility to the district’s bond holders, the money must be spent as prescribed by the bond election. It has nothing to do with the state’s budget problems. Finally, the district has committed to reducing administrative staff before reducing classroom teachers. When facts are not required, it is much easier to make a point. Unfortunately, the point has little or no value. Allen ISD, just as all school districts in Texas, has an operating budget, funded from property taxes, that pays salaries, provides educational and support services, an allows the district to operate. This funding is set by the state and is the fund that is in danger of being drastically cut by the current session of the state legislature. The District also has a Capital Budget fund that is used for construction, land purchases, and items such as school busses. This money is generated by the sale of bonds which are voted for by the residents of Allen. Once approved by voters, bonds may only be sold by the district if certain state mandated financial conditions exist. It is against the law for the district to use operating funds for capital projects or capital funds for operating the district. It would be a violation of Texas law if the funds for the stadium were used to pay teacher salaries or fund educational services. To say that District officials are being dismissive, to question their decision to spend money on the stadium vs. teacher salaries, or to imply that their hands aren’t tied is just ignoring the facts and state law. The facts are that Allen residents voted and approved the sale of bonds to fund the football stadium, the district has met state mandated financial requirements to sell the bonds and the bonds are being financed without raising local property taxes. It is also a fact that stadium or not, the financial challenges faced by Allen and all school districts in Texas would not change. BTW, I live in McKinney and have no dog in this fight, but I think the facts are important.

we'll see when we see all the facts. We're all guessing on what the facts are and then drawing conclusions.

When you're talking about budgets and balancing it, revenue is only half of the equation. I've posted the raw numbers in another thread, and I'm not going to take the time to find it again for this discussion, but the REVENUE to the fed in relation to the Capital Gains rate always goes UP when the rate is dropped, and always goes down when the rate is increased because the amount of activity that generates the tax revenue climbs faster than the rate drops, and conversely, slows faster than the rate can rise. ...Revenue, not a balanced budget is the issue. the Budget was balanced because the economy was roaring, and spending was being held relatively low thanks to a Republican congress and a very prudent President Clinton. If you look at the revenue side of things, the 2001 tax cuts did exactly what we predicted - they raised revenue to the Treasury. ...but immediately after 9/11, we had an economy begin to suffer and within a year we were spending on two wars. Then within another year, we had a MASSIVE entitlement passed in the form of the Medicare Drug Program and, to your often-raised point, we had spending out of control. The Revenue couldn't keep up, regardless of the tax rates. I opposed President Bush and the Republican congress at the time for their spending on this type of thing. ...but the healthcare plan and the Stimulus and other spending and the current track has debt skyrocketing. I opposed Bush overseeing this type of debt run up. ...this President has doubled down. We have to reverse course on spending. Not correct the course, but literally turn this thing around. The portion of the pipeline that was approved was the Oklahoma to Texas portion, not the entire US portion. The Canadians are ready to go when we are, assuming they don't find another customer for their oil, which they will if we don't move in short order.

It is going to be 5-4 either way. My gut tells me that the individual mandate will be struck down, and of late the SCOTUS has been easier to read, but Coffee is dead on here - you can't read too much into today. it'll be interesting to see what happens.