• Blog Entries

    • By TK in ES Coverage
         1
      In today's Divisional Debacle, the Defense under Greg Manusky in the first half, gave up 207 yards of offense (105 rushing/102 passing) and two touchdowns.  That said, they did manage a single INT on which the Offense actually managed to score a touchdown off of. They allowed 12 of 16 passes to be completed . 
       
      In the second half it was 107 yards given up (58 rushing//49 passing) a field goal and a touchdown. They traded their first half pick for a second half sack. However, Dallas completed all five of their pass attempts. 
       
      Don't read that thinking "Well it seems like they tightened up some in the 2nd half."  They didn't. They simply had about half the plays in the second half. 30 plays in the First and 18 in the Second.
       
      So far in two Divisional matchups, the Defense has faltered in the Second half. They start out like a house of fire for the first few drives until their opponents gradually make adjustments. This Defensive coaching staff fails make any adjustments, whether in game or at the very least at Halftime. They've given up over 30 points per game for a total of 63 points given up in two games. While the Bears are up next, the Pats await and they've put up over 70 points in two games. Yeah. Ok. They did shut out the Dolphins today which is looking like the NFL version of ... ahem... shooting fish in a barrel. 
       
      The frustrating thing is Manusky is the DC that the Front Office actively looked to replace during the off season without firing him. When you know they're looking to replace you, most people would make a concentrated effort to show an improvement. Yet Manusky's Defense still keeps acting like it's starring in Groundhog Day.
       
      In his post game presser, when asked directly about if any coaching changes would be made, Gruden said "No, I think after two games – you’re talking about playing two very good offensive football teams and two of the best offensive lines in pro football we just played back-to-back. That’s no excuse whatsoever, but I don’t think we need to hit the panic button yet. We just have to continue to focus on what we can do better to win. Get Jonathan [Allen] in here, get a couple of our corners back in here and let’s go back and strap it up against Chicago [Bears] next week and see what happens.” 
       
      Here's another frustrating thing. The defensive communication was an issue last season as well. Wasn't this supposed to have been worked on during OTA's and Training Camp? It's understandable that the rookies would still be on a learning curve, but NFL vets like Collins and DRC you'd think they would have down by the start of the season. 
       
      Gruden said they're a very talented group on Defense but that they weren't reaching them. When questioned as to why the coaching staff that has been in place for several years, wasn't reaching them, he defended the comment as them being a young defense. “We have some moving parts now. Landon Collins is a veteran guy but this is his first year, [Montez] Sweat’s in his first year, [Cole] Holcomb, it’s his first year, [Jon] Bostic is in his first year. We’re playing Dominique [Rodgers-Cromartie] at corner and this is Jimmy Moreland’s first year, so it’s not like we are the most experienced group. We feel like were very talented, but we`re still fighting through somethings. There are a lot of things to look forward to, without a doubt, but we do have to play better and strap it up and get back to work."

       
       
       
Rdskns2000

Presidential Election 2020 - Baby Sharpie vs Batwoman or Batman

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

Putting this here because Andrew Yang is running for President.  Interesting conversation on the need for universal basic income.  He brings up a lot of interesting points in favor of the idea not just as a "feel-good" thing, but why it will be necessary.

 

http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/andrew-yang

 

I haven't listened to the podcast but I've thought for a while that AI and automation in general are going to force a situation where universal basic income is necessary.

 

The wealthy won't like the tax increases, but they probably wouldn't like being guillotined either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long term, I’m not sure if I think UBI is necessary. I would much rather see a guaranteed minimum income, that is relative to cost of living per area. 

 

Someone like me has no rational reason to receive UBI. I suspect a large chunk of the population won’t, despite automation driven job loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

Long term, I’m not sure if I think UBI is necessary. I would much rather see a guaranteed minimum income, that is relative to cost of living per area. 

 

Someone like me has no rational reason to receive UBI. I suspect a large chunk of the population won’t, despite automation driven job loss.

If you're not gonna use it, can I have it?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, techboy said:

 

I haven't listened to the podcast but I've thought for a while that AI and automation in general are going to force a situation where universal basic income is necessary.

 

The wealthy won't like the tax increases, but they probably wouldn't like being guillotined either.

 

Yeah I have always been curious about it as a concept due to automation, but didn't realize how close we actually are to a snowball affect of automation.  He also got into why the "just retrain for a new industry" concept is not realistic.  He actually poked holes in what the current GOP and Dems offer up as solutions, when they aren't just outright ignoring the issue all together.  I found his take on it to be the most informed and researched so far.    I also totally agree that judging the economy on GDP is very outdated because technology is mostly what is now driving GDP not people, so GDP is going to sky rocket in the next decade or so, and we are going to hear from all the usual media outlets how great that is, except the two issues is that it won't be because more human workers/more jobs and upwards of 75% of the revenue produced from that GDP is disappearing from the economy.  

2 hours ago, No Excuses said:

Long term, I’m not sure if I think UBI is necessary. I would much rather see a guaranteed minimum income, that is relative to cost of living per area. 

 

Someone like me has no rational reason to receive UBI. I suspect a large chunk of the population won’t, despite automation driven job loss.

 

The argument he gave for everyone receiving it is that the UBI is not a replacement for a job necessarily, but it is money that will usually always end up going back into the immediate economy.  You might not need the $1000, but even if you use it as "play money" to go out to eat or buy stuff, if it helps stimulate your local economy it has a net positive effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

The energy is not with Biden, but his pitch is calm, experienced leadership, which has nothing to do with policy.  That's a pretty powerful pitch in the face of constant chaos.  

We'll see. I just have this feeling, Dem primary electorate is going to nominate someone; who can't win in 2020.

 

I get that feeling from where I see the real passion and by the issue stances the candidates are taking.

 

The country as a whole is probably a couple of presidential cycles away from embracing progressive. Partly, those opposed will be dying off.

 

Too early but for now, nothing has changed my opinion that Donald gets reelected.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah as the question is will Joe Biden, the VP with Obama, run or not? As he could be a formidable Democratic rival to Trump. But Father Time is not on his side as well as personal issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

The argument he gave for everyone receiving it is that the UBI is not a replacement for a job necessarily, but it is money that will usually always end up going back into the immediate economy.  You might not need the $1000, but even if you use it as "play money" to go out to eat or buy stuff, if it helps stimulate your local economy it has a net positive effect.

 

Is it just me or does the idea behind UBI sound an awful lot like the idea behind the progressive tax system.  Add in the earned income credit and we already have the building blocks in place.  

 

In some ways, the advancements in the second half of the 20th century were no less drastic than AI and automation.  Workers are more efficient than ever.  It takes far less people to do the same job.  Yet corporations and executives reaped most of the benefits while worker wage has stagnated.  If the progressive tax system worked correctly, instead of being ****ized by Norquist and Co, the wealthy would shoulder far higher share of the taxes, social safety net and earned income credit would be dramatically expanded to ensure that everyone working could have a suitable standard of living.  That would spur spending into the economy which would create new jobs to replace the jobs of the old economy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I could make anyone President, it would be William Weld.

 

No way is a social libertarian gonna survive a GOP primary, unfortunately...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, No Excuses said:

Long term, I’m not sure if I think UBI is necessary. I would much rather see a guaranteed minimum income, that is relative to cost of living per area. 

 

Someone like me has no rational reason to receive UBI. I suspect a large chunk of the population won’t, despite automation driven job loss.

 

In the proposals I've seen for people that don't need it, UBI comes in the form of a tax credit.  Alot like the Earned Income Tax Credit, although you don't need to be actually working.

 

Indexing it to cost of living in the area is a bad idea (it will cost too much)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

Considering the GOP isn't even going to have primaries/caucus in some states; he's wasting his time.  Trump and the GOP will make sure, noone can run against him.  I'd watch out Bill, there maybe some Russians lurking near you.   Putin, can't have his puppet not get renominated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for Weld.  Don't let Trump stroll into the general election un-bruised. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for Bill Weld. In some scenarios, I would even vote for him (or someone similar) over a Bernie-type candidate. 

 

But that isn’t happening as long as the GOP is the de facto party of racist, low-information, feelings-before-facts dweebs. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some of Andy Yang's points about UBI from his website. 

 

How would we pay for UBI:

Spoiler

It would be easier than you might think. Andrew proposes funding UBI by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value-Added Tax (VAT) of 10%. Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction.

 

A Value-Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on the production of goods or services a business produces. It is a fair tax and it makes it much harder for large corporations, who are experts at hiding profits and income, to avoid paying their fair share. A VAT is nothing new. 160 out of 193 countries in the world already have a Value-Added Tax or something similar, including all of Europe which has an average VAT of 20 percent.

 

The means to pay for a Universal Basic Income will come from 4 sources:

 

1.  Current spending.  We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like.  This reduces the cost of Universal Basic Income because people already receiving benefits would have a choice but would be ineligible to receive the full $1,000 in addition to current benefits.

 

2.  A VAT.  Our economy is now incredibly vast at $19 trillion, up $4 trillion in the last 10 years alone.  A VAT at half the European level would generate $800 billion in new revenue.  A VAT will become more and more important as technology improves because you cannot collect income tax from robots or software.

 

3.  New revenue.  Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy.  The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy would grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs.  This would generate approximately $500 – 600 billion in new revenue from economic growth and activity.

 

4.  We currently spend over one trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like.  We would save $100 – 200 billion as people would take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional.  Universal Basic Income would pay for itself by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot up.  Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth.

 

What are the benefits of UBI:

Spoiler

Universal Basic Income would transform society in many positive ways and evidence shows this. Trials have led to all kinds of benefits—some expected, some surprising. Here are just a few of them:

  • UBI encourages people to find work. Many current welfare programs take away benefits when recipients find work, sometimes leaving them financially worse off than before they were employed. UBI is for all adults, regardless of employment status, so recipients are free to seek additional income, which most everyone does.
  •  
  • UBI reduces bureaucracy—with no-strings-attached coverage, determining who is eligible is far simpler and the cost of administering benefits is greatly reduced.  
  •  
  • UBI increases bargaining power for workers because a guaranteed, unconditional income gives them leverage to say no to exploitative wages and abusive working conditions. Employers can’t push workers around as much.  
  •  
  • UBI increases entrepreneurship because it provides for basic needs in the early lean days of a company and acts as a safety net if the business fails. It also gives you more consumers to sell to because everyone has more disposable income.
  •  
  • The Roosevelt Institute found that a UBI would create 4.6 million jobs and grow the economy by 12 percent continuously. UBI would be the greatest catalyst for new jobs, entrepreneurship, and creativity we have ever seen.  
  •  
  • UBI improves the mental health of recipients because it reduces conditions of scarcity, poverty, and financial insecurity, major sources of stress for millions of people.
  •  
  • UBI helps people make smarter decisions. Studies have shown that people in straits of economic insecurity have a reduced cognitive ability equal to 13 IQ points. UBI would provide the security people need to focus on important things like their families.
  •  
  • UBI improves physical health. With increased economic security, people are less prone to stresses, disease, and self-destructive behavior. A UBI experiment in Canadasaw hospitalization rates go down 8.5%.
  •  
  • UBI increases art production, nonprofit work and caring for loved ones because it provides a supplementary income for those interested in labor that isn’t supported by the market.  
  •  
  • UBI improves labor market efficiency because fewer workers are stuck in jobs that are a bad fit. National productivity will improve because people will be able to seek work that is more rewarding and promote higher job satisfaction.
  •  
  • UBI improves relationships by reducing domestic violence, child abuse, financial stresses, and sources of conflict. It ensures that everyone has an optimistic sense of his or her own future and has the mobility to get out of abusive relationships.

It’s amazing what a steady source of money can do to transform people’s lives. We can experience it here in America if we adopt Universal Basic Income and make it real; we are the wealthiest and most technologically advanced society in human history. It’s time to invest in our people.

 

Imagine your life and that of everyone you know with an extra $1,000 per month – how would you spend it? How would things change?

 

Is there evidence to support UBI:

Spoiler

Experiments with unconditional cash benefits around the world have proven to be one of the most successful ways of reducing poverty. The fear that cash recipients would waste their money on drugs or alcohol, stop working, or have more kids have been disproven by the World Bank. Many of these behaviors were actually reduced.

Since 1998, there have been a total of 461 research papers published on the topic.

 

You can view them all here.

 

In the last 50 years, there have been more than 30 cash transfer programs studied. Here are a few of our favorites:

The data is clear – giving people money enables them to live better lives. But put aside the data for a moment and just think about it for yourself. What would you do with an additional $1,000/month? How about your family and friends?

Universal Basic Income is real and will transform our society for the better; we just need the courage and will to both care about and invest in our people.

 

Won't UBI cause inflation:

Spoiler

The federal government recently printed $4 trillion for the bank bailouts in its quantitative easing program with no inflation. Our plan for a Universal Basic Income uses money already in the economy. In monetary economics, leading theory states that inflation is based on changes in the supply of money. Our UBI plan has no changes in the supply of money because it is funded by a Value-added Tax. 

 

It is likely that some companies will increase their prices in response to people having more buying power, and a VAT would also increase prices marginally. However, there will still be competition between firms that will keep prices in check. Over time, technology will continue to decrease the prices of most goods where it is allowed to do so (e.g., clothing, media, consumer electronics, etc.). The main inflation we currently experience is in sectors where automation has not been applied due to government regulation or inapplicability – primarily housing, education, and healthcare. The real issue isn’t Universal Basic Income, it’s whether technology and automation will be allowed to reduce prices in different sectors.

 

Is this socialism/communism:

Spoiler

No. Communism is, by definition, a revolutionary movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order built upon shared ownership of production. With Socialism, the core principle is the nationalization of the means of production – i.e. the government seizes Amazon and Google. UBI is none of those things and actually fits so seamlessly into capitalism, it is projected to grow the economy $2.5 trillion in eight years.

Really, UBI is necessary for the continuation of capitalism through the automation wave and displacement of workers. Markets need consumers to sell things to. Universal Basic Income is capitalism with a floor that people cannot fall beneath.  

 

 

more at link

Edited by Momma There Goes That Man
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beto O' Rourke was just DESTROYED.

 

He's done.

 

He lives in a HOUSE, which means his opposition to the wall is fake and bad.

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.