SmashMouth

I'm of the weak opinion, (weak, because I only have opinions of coaches to back it up & not facts) that recruiting (a violation) is much less prevalent than athletes transferring on their own to a better suited school for athletic purposes (also a violation). None of it is acceptable to me, but I understand why people do it.

5 minutes ago, Coach_Izzy said:

I’ve never once accused any schools of recruiting…I know first hand that schools who have a ton of success in recent years don’t have to recruit! Kids are fickle & will flock to these programs because they want to win, get exposure at the highest level & get recruited at the highest level. There’s only a hand full of programs that are doing this consistently so it’s no secret why they have the most talent…this ain’t rocket science.

NS had major flaws on both sides of the ball this year…if they were out recruiting you think they wouldn’t have brought in players to fill those voids? 

So is it your opinion that almost no schools recruit? And I'm just asking, cuz I have no idea.

Just now, Coach_Izzy said:

What this gotta do with what’s going on at SOC? Lol where are your facts that SOC is recruiting I’ll wait… 

In your opinion, and you have knowledge, what schools are possibly recruiting? Just your opinion...which ones?

Errybody stupid

6 hours ago, Coach_Izzy said:

Yup, more students=attendance money from the state. 

Til the students outgrow the schools. Then they pass a bond and Big Daddy who doesn’t even have a kid in the system anymore has to pay more in property taxes. Lol. There’s definitely 2 sides to this coin. 

9 minutes ago, Reagan said:

"A student still has to establish residency in that school district"

This kind of had me curious also.  Unless I'm not totally understanding this "open enrollment" situation, if a student has residency in a district this student is automatically part of that district and no need for any "open enrollment" program.  

It's way more convoluted than that though if you're seeking to compete in UIL activities.

20 minutes ago, Coach_Izzy said:

Difference between your son and the kids who are at the likes of DV, NS, SOC etc...they are bonafide bluechips. And parents will do what's necessary to ensure their kid has the best chance to be successful in athletics. Nothing wrong with a parent doing what's best for their child. For those complaining about open enrollment, that just means the higher ups at the school you root for could care less about athletics or they could easily make the district an open enrollment district like the others. Simple simple solution...

Exactly my sentiment. The only place we may differ on the open enrollment issue is that, in my opinion, public schools exist first and foremost for education and not extra-curriculars. But I can't argue with each parent doing what's best for their child. 

7 minutes ago, Tiger33 said:

Not me, i dont live in Lumberton anymore. Lol

I know. I didn't mean you, specifically. I meant that a district has a choice. Choose to be open or not.

Personally, I'm not moving to put my kid in a worse school district (academically, financially, etc.) or having to drive him across town to another city for the sake of his athletic career unless he's a bona fide blue chip prospect. Most kids aren't. Mine was good and played in college, but he wasn't headed to a power school for sure. Instead, he got a quality education in Lumberton, I didn't have to sell my house and move, he got to experience college ball and help win a National Championship for a D3 school, UMHB in Belton, TX. Mission accomplished.

43 minutes ago, Tiger33 said:

Lumberton would never vote for open enrollment 

I agree with you on that opinion. And for the record, I am for Lumberton having a closed enrollment. Too many possible negatives that don't outweigh the positives. Mostly, higher taxes which I don't want to pay... 🤑

39 minutes ago, Tiger33 said:

Lumberton would never vote for open enrollment 

Ok, then suffer the consequences. Your choice.

3 hours ago, CS. said:

Imagine if LCM or BC recruited the guys out of WOS and went to State

Or just opted to an easier district... Oh wait...

1 hour ago, AggiesAreWe said:

Contrary to what is being posted on here about "open" enrollment schools, those schools still have to abide by UIL policies when it comes to participation in UIL athletics. A student still has to establish residency in that school district and the PAPF from the school he/she transferred from has to be clean (i.e. box checked for not transferring for athletic purposes).

Open enrollment allows students to transfer in to attend, but it doesn't allow for students to transfer in for athletics. That's governed by the UIL. The DEC still has to approve those transfers to play varsity athletics.

For those who don't speak UIL, PAPF = Previous Athletic Participation Form, I believe.

3 hours ago, CS. said:

Ultimately, these schools are robbing closed enrollment schools of potential trips to Rounds in the playoffs they may never see otherwise. 

Can those closed enrollment schools change to open enrollment schools?

On 12/13/2024 at 2:56 PM, CardinalBacker said:

"The war (in which I never saw any action) gave me the Type 1 Diabeetus (which is a genetic condition).  

Who's gonna pay for my prosthetic leg once they amputate my big fat leg?"

To answer your question... I'd drink, like men do.  Not demand a monthly check... like welfare queens do. 

Yeah, that's a little far fetched and a lot disrespectful to those who served valiantly. My Dad (remember the guy with the 2 Bronze Stars with Combat V) got no monthly check or anything above treatment from the VA for the cancer he was awarded along with the commendations for heroism in battle. Your scenario doesn't happen.

13 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

1. I didn’t “assume” it wasn’t invested… it wasn’t invested. So your premise is faulty from the start. I pointed solely at Medicare because I feel it’s the biggest financial loser of all. 
 

2. The numbers don’t lie… you’ve paid less than $50k towards Medicare over your career. To stand there and chirp “but I paid for it! It’s MINE!” is a bald faced lie, if Medicare has paid more than that amount towards your care. 
 

The point I’m making is this… one third of all federal dollars spent in 2023 were borrowed. When 95% of that total spending is a sacred cow (military, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on our debt, etc…. How are those two billionaires gonna save us? They can’t, because y’all won’t let them. The areas you want to see trimmed are insignificant in the grand scheme of things. 
 

3. Y’all keep comparing Medicare to an insurance policy….. it isn’t, and it wasn’t. It was a savings account that drew no interest. Add to that the fact that the fund was depleted by big government, health care costs soared, we all started living longer on average, and population growth stalled, and the whole thing was proven to be a state sponsored Ponzi scheme. 
 

And old farts hollering “just wait until I get paid off, then screw the rest of y’all” should be met with some cold hard reality. Y’all elected and re-elected the jerks that destroyed it.
 

4. Your generation as a whole is responsible for its collapse and should be punished. 

1. I did not explain myself very well. My fault. I meant to say that the money that was paid in into Medicare, had it been kept by you, you could’ve invested that money and had more than $50,000. Also, just pointing solely at Medicare does not show the whole picture. You have to look at it broader than that.

2. I don’t know which “you” you are speaking of, but I have paid in more than $50,000 in Medicare over my career. And if you look at the amount of investment income that I’ve lost from it, it is potentially very much larger than that. Also, Medicare has not paid one dime towards my health healthcare. So I don’t know where you’re getting your information from. Are you just using points that suit you? That’s where you’re failing is.

3. this is the only point you have made that makes any sense whatsoever.

4. I take it back. You’re not as smart as I thought you were.

4 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Any questions about political prosecutions in NYC?

No doubt...

18 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

Your Medicare tax rate was 1.45% of your gross earnings. So if you averaged $75k annual for your entire 50 year career (bag boy at Market Basket at 16 y/o until your started drawing Medicare at age 65) you would have personally paid $54,375.  Except you and both know that you weren’t making $75k a year as a bag boy 50 years ago. And it’s unlikely you ever grossed $75k at any point in your career, either. 
 

Your actual contributions to Medicare probably total less than $40k… but you demand free healthcare because “you already paid for it.”

 

you a welfare queen. 

You are assuming the money paid into the government (which is also matched by your employer and could have been paid to you instead) was never invested. You're also not taking Social Security into account. The total of the two is 7.65% and doubled to 15.3% with the employer match. Then there's also the .9% additional Medicare paid by the employer for earners over $200,000. To be fair, there is a cap on the 6.2% (which goes up every year without fail), so you can't just look at lifetime earnings and apply the math.

But, if invested since day one based on just the average rate of return, the earnings you could get are exponentially greater than what the government may or may not give you back - even taking into consideration survivor benefits.

And don't give me the argument about people not being responsible enough to invest their own money for retirement. That's beside the point. IT'S THEIR MONEY!

CB, if you're trying to tell me that you trust the government to be responsible & efficient with your money better than you could be on your own, I have truly underestimated your intelligence. You're a smart guy, and you know better.

54 minutes ago, baddog said:

Thanks to your father for his service. Sorry he passed.

I appreciate that. It was hard growing up with 2 Marine parents. You can damn well bet my bed was made every morning! Lol.

On 12/9/2024 at 1:33 PM, CardinalBacker said:

Slight hearing loss, gimpy left knee and, you guessed it, "PTSD" leading to a check for the next 60 years?  Nah... that's wasteful spending. 

If anyone of those injuries was sustained in the private sector, the affected employee could sue the pants off their employer and end up with a huge settlement and/or continued payments. Usually not so with a member of the military. And what is the deal with PTSD? Do you not think it can be debilitating? I'm only guessing you never killed people or got shot at for a living...

I can remember my Mom (a former Woman Marine) telling me stories of my Dad (Sgt. Major, USMC who retired after 30 years of service) returning from combat.

After a couple purple hearts, a couple bronze stars with combat V for Valor and a host of other commendations during 2 tours in Viet Nam, after losing several very close friends in combat (some in front of his own eyes), after having to write letters to kid's parents letting them know their sons were heroes but weren't coming home, after being spit on and cursed at the airport when he returned home as "thanks" for his service, I can only imagine the stories she told me of how he was affected were only a scratch on the surface. Luckily, he was able to persevere and didn't retire from the USMC until the mid 80's. Not all guys were as tough (on the surface) as my Dad. I could never imagine him showing weakness at all. But to hear her tell me stories of him waking up in a cold sweat, sometimes wetting the bed or crying out in the night or launching himself to the floor when he heard a plane flying overhead even months after returning home made me a believer of how tragic that experience could be.

He passed away from non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (cancer/leukemia) attributed to the Agent Orange (kinda like round up on steroids) he would march through, sleep in, be covered in during his time in the field. They were kind enough to provide him a flag, a gun salute and inurnment at Arlington National Cemetery. Though never on disability, he did have full retirement for the rest of his life, though cut short. I think he earned it.

Working With a 100% Disability Rating

The VA uses the severity of your health condition to calculate how much disability compensation you qualify for, assigning a disability rating ranging from zero to 100 percent.

No matter where you fall on this scale, veterans can still legally work, even full-time, even at a 100 percent disability rating (single or combined).

However, to collect TDIU benefits, veterans must show that their service-connected disability renders them unable to maintain “substantially gainful employment.”

Working While Collecting TDIU Benefits

From the above, it sounds like veterans who get TDIU benefits can’t work at all. But this is not the case. Under certain criteria, veterans can still earn money while collecting TDIU benefits.

Self-Employment and Freelance Work

What if a veteran earns a little side money, helps out a local business, sells collectibles or artwork online? Can they still collect TDIU benefits? Yes. As long as the veteran doesn’t have “substantially gainful employment,” they can still work and receive TDIU benefits.

So what qualifies as substantially gainful employment? As of March 2019, VA defines substantially gainful employment as “employment that is ordinarily followed by the nondisabled to earn their livelihood with earnings common to the particular occupation in the community where the veteran resides.”

Therefore, if you earn an annual amount that’s above the poverty line for your area (as set by the Census Bureau), the VA can discontinue your TDIU benefits.

Therefore, a veteran who sells items on eBay or receives money for small side jobs can still collect TDIU disability benefits – as long as they aren’t making more than the poverty line in their area.

Marginal Employment and TDIU Benefits

Another way veterans can work while receiving TDIU benefits is to earn money from “marginal employment.” VA considers several different scenarios as marginal employment, including:

Working less than part-time hours for a particular job.

Collecting less than half the average wage for a particular job.

Working for family or friends in a job tailored to your abilities (protected employment)

43 minutes ago, Big girl said:

1. Did I lie? 2. Trudeau along with other world leaders laughed at him.

1. I didn't say you lied. Perhaps you don't understand what invoke means or possibly how using Trudeau as an example of those who think Trump is laughable was/is a very poor choice on your part. I try to be very civil to you because most people run you through the mud pretty hard - sometimes to the point of overkill. But you make it difficult to not be made fun of. If I may, perhaps you should think a little more before you post.  Just some friendly advice.

2. Btw, what other world leaders laughed at him?

Whatever the case, no one is laughing now...

2 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

He's not a billionaire, so he won't get a spot in the Cabinet. 

Good point. I think he'd make an exception just to tee off the woke left though. Lol.

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

Yes, but no.  There's a very, very small percentage of SELF MOTIVATED individuals who are capable of being productive without supervision.  Frankly, most people are not productive when working remotely.   Studies have shown that most full-time, remote employees actually work less than 12 hours per week.  

 

Great for the employees, not good for the employers, or more importantly it's terrible for the customers who ultimately pay the price for the loss of productivity in the way of higher prices for goods/services.  

 

I agree 100%. I couldn't work from home and do a quality job. Too many outside distractions and quite frankly, not disciplined enough to stay on task. And I'm the boss! Lol. But if an employee is accountable for a certain standard of output and they meet those standards, I personally don't have a huge issue. It saves money in other ways too. Less office space required, utilities, all the way down to the coffee bar...

But that only works in certain environments. We have certain functions in our office that require on-hands & on-site interaction - namely, our accounting department. Off-site workers would not be acceptable in that case for me.

The biggest message in my original post was to concentrate on efficiencies of scale. Don't have 5 people in a department when 3 could do the job  whether on or off-site. Set employees to a standard and don't accept crappy output.

I don't have as big an issue of remote working (and for the record, I work on-site - not remotely) as I do the massive inefficiency of government in the first place. Get rid of unnecessary bureaucracy, unneeded positions and make government employees accountable for their output. That will probably handle the remote working issue in the first place.

Remote working actually makes sense for some positions (many of them tech related).

12 hours ago, baddog said:

If I were Penny, I’d stay off the subway if possible, maybe get a haircut.

Trump needs to make him Secretary of Transportation. Lol.