Brian Schumacker

@benlikessport Smart play if he did it on purpose. Or he could just be trying to win the ball in a dangerous area.

I understand it’s a penalty But Yamal just ran in to draw contact man🤦‍♂️

@DavidFurones_ 100%. Player’s responsibility for knowing where his opponent is and not kick him blindly.

Should Spain have been awarded the penalty on contact drawn by Lamine Yamal from France’s Lucas Digne?

@JohnHonesty__ He could have stepped in between Yamal and the ball.

Serious question, should have Digne just stood there and let his own ball be taken by Yamal to avoid the penalty? It makes absolutely no sense

@EinSchwarzwelt Stupid take. The player is responsible for knowing the opponent is there. I’m going to use that excuse if I ever get in a car wreck. Officer, I didn’t know he was there. How can I be held responsible for hitting him?”

Way too fucking harsh of a penalty call on Digne, that's just ridiculous. Digne had no idea Yamal was coming from behind to force contact.

@UTDreds9 He is 12 years younger for fucks sake. Messi was 100x the player Mbappe is now. And he is a piece of shit like Mbappe. You are nuts.

Prime Mbappe is more complete than prime Messi. What does Messi actually do better than Mbappe today?

@BladeoftheS What a ridiculous take!

FIFA has appointed Ismail Elfath to referee England v Argentina. He has refereed 5 matches with Messi in them. Messi won all 5. This World Cup is being fixed for Argentina.

@Blessing_Olivi You are crazy and have no idea what you are talking about. Clear penalty!

France has been robbed. Yamal controlled the ball with his hand first. That's not a penalty.

My point is there was nothing confusing about it. He blindly kicked for the ball and his opponent was there. Clear penalty. Been reffing for 30 years, it was clear as day. I wouldn’t have any issue with a pen being called against France against Yamal in second half when Theo threw him to the ground with no attempt for the ball. But also don’t have a huge problem with it not being called. It could go either way. This one, it would have been a complete disaster to not call.

@bdschu1 @Jacobtheclipper It is what it is ⚽️

So if the ball is in the air you can just run into the foot of a player just winding up to kick it and you get a penalty?! This sport is a JOKE and why us Americans will never really care about it. We don’t reward stupid tactics like this ✌️

@SamENole He is supposed to have awareness that the player is there. It is a pen 100%

Giving a virtual free goal for an accidental minor foul is way too harsh of a penalty. Give a free kick outside of the box or something but not a PK. I don’t think Digne even knew Yamal was there. 🤷‍♂️

@ClipsBolts @Jacobtheclipper Know that his opponent is right there and that kicking him would be a penalty!

@Jacobtheclipper This one confused me too, what was the guy supposed to do half way through his kick 😆

@JGibbs405649155 @Carly_e5 You still pay it!

@bdschu1 @Carly_e5 If you are self-employed your 6.2% is written off as a business expense.

Murray: Is it true that people making under $184,000 pay a 12.4% Social Security tax rate? Dahl: Yes Murray: And the rate for someone making $1,000,000? Dahl: 2.2% Murray: So, a 12.4% tax for people making less than $184,000, but 2.2% for a millionaire or .0002% for billionaires.

I agree with most of your novel you wrote there…lol. By the way if you are a 1099 employee, you pay the full 12% which explains how someone would easily pay the amounts discussed. Nonetheless, this is yet another tax I am forced to pay with no choice in the matter, and my entire point is that the system is broken, has been broken, and will continue to get worse, all of which you so eloquently spelled out in your response, when it should have never existed in the first place.

I’m not sure you fully understand the formulas for SSA - if someone paid more into the system, then their benefit will be higher and they will always get back more than they paid in unless they die in under 12 years – math is math. That's right it doesn't include the employer contribution, because we are talking about your money - not theirs. I highly doubt you have paid more into the system than 200k dude, that means you would have had to make an average of 84k every year - for the last forty years. But, let’s say you did, and you made double that for the last 40 years. In other words, you made 168k every year since 1986. Your SSA tax would have been $10,416 a year x 40 years or $416,640 dollars - putting you in the top 5% of all income earners over the last 40 years. That would give you about a $4,100 a monthly benefit - for the next 20 years or $820,000 of benefits for your $416k contribution. Again, roughly 2x of contributions - that benefit/contribution works out the same no matter what your income level was. Additionally, the system is insolvent because the people in 1984 made two critical errors in projections. First, they assumed a 5.5% annual wage growth and it’s been more like 3.7% nominal. They actually thought the average wage now would be about $137K and its closer to $84k. Second, that error caused the worker to beneficiary ratio to be too low. Even though they estimated that it would only take 2.3 workers per beneficiary in 2025, and we actually have 2.7, its not high enough because they assumed higher nominal wages over the last 40 years that actually happened. Essentially, they thought they would be taxing $137k per person at 6.2% and its $84k at 6.2% – it’s really that simple – not a Ponzi scheme just bad projections. It’s always been a pay-as-you-go system, and it’s going to get so much worse when all the Gen X and Millennials have all retired by 2061. Then, there will be about 92M people 65+ versus the roughly 67M now. The changes they need to make now, are not just for the current beneficiaries – but the millions of new retirees coming. If they don’t make changes now, Gen Z will be screwed in the future – just like the Boomers are about to be because of the insolvency. This exact issue arose in 1984 – when it was going under the following year. Then, they screwed over the Boomers – who were the Gen Z of the time – by raising the tax rate from 5% in the early 80’s to 6.2%, raised the full retirement age from 65 to 67, and….. started taxing social security benefits to bring in more income for the program. This time, they will do the same thing again and remove the income cap on wages – they have no other choice really. There is zero chance they will do anything that adversely effects the current recipients because they are the ones who have paid into the system – more than any other generation. Further, they; Boomers, Gen X and Millennials are either in retirement, close to it like me, or will be entering it in the next 15 years – making the issue a close personal one for them. And they, those generations mentioned, are the most active and largest voting bloc in the country. Consequently, no matter how inefficient government is spending money – SSA is codified law, and they can not change the system radically because SSA has protections against major changes via reconciliation budget processes, etc. Essentially, to make radical changes they would need a super majority vote in the Senate due to filibusters, and there is ZERO change you are going to get 60 Senators to reduce benefits for the public. Even if they come to an agreement on simple changes like adjusting the tax rate, removing the income cap, maybe increasing the full retirement age, there will always be 33 Senators up for reelection in the upcoming 2yr election cycle – making the issue a third-rail for a third of them. Thus, the program isn’t going anywhere, it will stay as is with minor changes because those spineless fucks don’t have the balls to make real changes – they will punt – like just raising the income cap and raising the tax rate 1% (split between worker and employer) - which will extend the program another 15(ish) years, and then they do the same shit again – punt. Ok I’m rambling… I think we both agree on your underlying principle, I’m just saying the social program isn’t going anywhere – even as inefficient as it is.

@thatsKAIZEN @omgsidewalks Quit talking sense to the commies. They will never give in!

@omgsidewalks Capitalism rewards what people value with their money. Not what you or I think people should value - what people actually value. This has been the case since people bartered with seashells. If you want to change what’s rewarded, then you need to change what people value.

If capitalism truly rewarded intelligence and skill, the richest people would be scientists, engineers, and neurosurgeons. If it rewarded talent, artists, writers, and creators would be at the top. If it rewarded hard work, cleaners, laborers, and service workers would be wealthy. But they’re not. So what exactly does capitalism reward?

You make an awful lot of assumptions there. I know a lot of people who have paid more than $200K into the system and will never get that back out of it. I will be one of those people too. That doesn’t even include the matching 6.2% your employer pays in for you. We don’t need a safety net or an investment program from the government. I agree completely that people should invest themselves, and they should have more of their money to do so without the government taking it to waste on frivolous spending. The system is insolvent and is exactly a Ponzi scheme. When they rely on the payments workers make today to pay the workers of yesterday, that is definition of a Ponzi scheme.

Blah Blah Blah - yeah, we get the argument - government isnt the best for investments. This ISN'T an investment program - its a social safety net. Second, you are not paying 100's of thousands into it LOL - maybe 200k if you are lucky. The median amount people pay into it at 6.2% of the median salary - $84k = $5k x 40years= 200k. Your benefit back at that level now is about 2k a month at 65. Life expectancy if you make it to 65 as a male is about 20 more years now - more by the time you retire. 24K a year x 20 years = $480k. And yes it will be there for you too, because they will do to you exactly what they did to us in 1984 - raise the tax rate and the retirement age, and hopefully this time the income cap too. So, you will get back more than you paid into, and remember its NOT an investment program, its a social safety net. HUGE difference in expectations. Lastly, its not the government's job to invest for you, its your job to take care of your own investments. This program is just in case your life goes sideways. Thus, you can invest your money like you said, and pay your taxes at the same time. Its not a binary choice because taxes = no choice, your financial future = 100% your choice. So do exactly what you said with the rest of your money, and unless you're also saying you don't need to pay taxes for anything - your argument against social security lacks a solid foundation.

@GreggPurviance @Carly_e5 How is it not a Ponzi scheme? They rely on our payroll deductions today to pay for the boomer’s payments. Sounds like a Ponzi scheme to me.

@bdschu1 @Carly_e5 It is a lousy retirement system but not a ponzi scheme.

Congress passes all sorts of shitty legislation that is unconstitutional like the SSA and Patriot Act. Government has no business in retirement benefits. One, they suck at it. I will have paid multiple $100Ks into this system and will be lucky if I collect any of it at all since it is insolvent. Two, the private sector is much better at it. If I stuck that $100Ks into an S&P fund, I would be far better off. Not to mention my employer pays the same amount I do which means double the money for the monstrosity of government to squander on “fill in the blank.” But by all means, let’s give them more of our money. They are such stewards of wealth with the $40T in debt they have accumulated.

@bdschu1 @Carly_e5 I sent you the link to the Social Security ACT passed by Congress in 1935 - read it. The Consitution doesn't provide for it directly, but it does say Congress can pass laws - which they did - to make that ACT law.

It is well documented that our government has raided the fund for a multitude of reasons over the decades. It has also been documented that fraudulent claims have been a problem, although it is not as massive as people think. Aside from all that, our government shouldn’t be in the retirement business. They have no constitutional directive to do so.

@bdschu1 @Carly_e5 it is being raided by illegal aliens, lazy keeches and special interests.

@JGibbs405649155 @Carly_e5 Where in the constitution does it say the government was supposed to collect a tax and disperse retirement and disability payments? I’m waiting…

It was in fact meant to provide "that kind of service". In fact, it was meant to do alot more than it does now. Lastly, they capped taxes on 3k of wages, and benefits at $85 a month back in 1940 - adjusting for inflation the wage cap and average benefit amount are right on par with back then. archives.gov/milestone-docu…

@KDCGlobal_ It’s because the Argentina player got a yellow which was unfair so they corrected it. Get over it

Embolo Red card for simulation in the middle of the pitch, this is the first time that I’ve seen VAR check for simulation in the middle of the pitch, FIRST TIME EVER and it’s against Argentina