Sun glasses are not allowed either.  When Scott played you could wear a tinted visor if you jumped through the right hoops.  Scott situation was the coaches finally figured out why he could not catch that well, and it was directly related to not being able to see.


The entire tint thing sunglasses or visors is a safety rule.

I think you live too close to Washington, D.C., Wes.  Did you actually see the results of the election?  The country is certainly moving more in the direction of Ayn Rand than it is toward European style socialism.  

Relax Colorado, I think this is just an offshoot of a discussion Wes and I started the other day where I took the position that government is a net consumer of wealth and can't create wealth, and he took the position that out future prosperity depends on government creating wealth. We were asked to discontinue that discussion, though, so we haven't picked up where we left off. That is probably just as well as we are likely to disagree, and we'll just have to see how history unfolds. In the meantime, lets get back to football.

The election results were mainly a vote against the use of tax payer dollars for private bank bailouts. A bank is about the most market economy based entity one can possibly find. Obviously there are is a minority that was voting on the principals of the Tea Party platform but I believe has drawn in classic libertarian/independent types to the voting process. The libertarian base was energized to vote and some candidates went down, that is all there is to it. On the global scale, the G-20 countries are moving toward a system of metrics to measure trade surplus/deficits to reduce the hot/cold speculative abuse of emerging markets and for global cooperation on the setting of bank rates and currency. There are serious global issues at hand like China's currency and America's low prime rate that is hurting the generation of private wealth but to change course over the short term would be a disaster for all  What I'm trying to say is that its monetary policy rather than tax policy is more important for generating/managing wealth. The current state pension levels in this country are unsustainable and with it all states have an impending budget crunch that can only be remediated with higher taxes. As long as businesses continue to receive tax incentivization for capital reinvestment the overall federal/state tax rates can be set quite high (with in reason of course) before there is significant impact on industry wealth.

Sorry your perception was such, but your response seemed so out of line that there must be something else going on.  Your wrath was not appropriate IMO.

Just pointing out the obvious, but there are actually three different possibilities, not just one. Higher taxes, lower spending, and maintaining the status quo until the system fails. This is not the place to debate which of these should be chosen, nor even to predict which will be chosen. We've already been chastised for this once. If you'd like to discuss the matter, I'd be happy to via PM, but let's leave it off the board.