Arrowhead Pride

There's always FirstRow Sports.

I hate that with such a vengence

If the NFL is not going to offer a means of watching their games online regularly (NBC does it well, including the upcoming SB), then they need to quit this. This isn’t “piracy” in the same way that torrents of movies are piracy. People are trying to watch their live-broadcasted games. They are consuming the NFL’s content. The see all of the commercials. No advertising dollars are lost. In fact, more people are seeing the games AND the ads because of these so-called “pirated” streams. The idea that the NFL is somehow losing money by me watching Chiefs games streamed on the internet while living in NJ is outrageous. This stuff is precisely what allows me to remain a devoted fan. Without online streams, I’d have NO access to Chiefs games. I’ve never seen a corporation (the NFL) try so hard to prevent people from genuinely consuming their content.

cheapham - February 3, 2012 reply

Yep.

Instead of trying to meet the demand, they go after the supply. That’s never worked and never will. Fortunately, there are still options out there, and probably more will spring up. Because, as I said, there is still demand not being met in legitimate ways.

i wish i could rec this on mobile

it seems to be a lose-lose not putting games online.

wustl_chiefs_fan - February 3, 2012 via Android app reply

I rec'd it for you.

I imagine they’re trying to force you to buy Sunday Ticket. I know several people who pay for Sunday Ticket to see one team, they couldn’t care less about watch all the other games. If it were easy to stream it online they wouldn’t pay out the ass.

JComp11 - February 3, 2012 reply

I buy it every year.

I don’t mind paying, because I do like watching other games that aren’t nationally televised.
What I don’t like is I have no access to preseason games. Drove me crazy last year….as much as they are largely unwatchable (Thanks Todd), by August, I just want football.

Same here

Only time we can listen to the chiefs broadcast(another thing I wish the NFL had, like every other sport)

KCinIL - February 3, 2012 via mobile reply

it's ridiculously easy and dirt cheap to stream online

think about it: Comcast offers high speed service (10 MB download) for $70 month … 250 GB total per month, that’s equivalent to 350 movies (at 700 MB each)

Comcast does not lose money

Their SHOULD be an option for people to buy Sunday Ticket, ideally by team, online instead of just through the satellite provider.

JComp11 - February 3, 2012 reply

You CAN buy it online.

But not for just one team. Costs something like $400 to stream it. No thanks, especially after hearing all the complaints about their feeds.

Chiefsdodgerslakers2415 - February 3, 2012 reply

Many apartment buildings won't allow you to get satellite TV though

So DirecTV is simply not an option for a large portion of the population…including myself. Not that I could afford Sunday Ticket though. It’s prohibitively expensive.

cheapham - February 3, 2012 reply

NFL App

The NFL App on iTunes does allow you to watch the Thursday Night Games

Just_Kane - February 3, 2012 reply

Don't remind me, that site was the only way I could watch any sports

while I’m “over there” on deployment.

5280ChiefsFan - February 3, 2012 reply

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Move to Canada

Part of all basic cable packages.

…and if you break your foot kicking the table after we lose, you can get that fixed for free too.
Just little chilly in the winter :)

Question,

Is it as simple as just moving there, or do u have to b a citizen? Health care, I mean.

motrepip - February 3, 2012 via mobile reply

I honestly don't know

I’d assume you would have to be a landed resident at the very least.

Where do I find this land you speak of?

Where I’m at, being a landed resident means buying at $12-20K per acre. But it does grow stuff, so there is that….

chiefsandcigars - February 3, 2012 reply

For free eh? So who pays the doctors?

and the drug companies? and nurses? and administrators?

Tax payers of course.

There is alot of money to spread around when you don’t fund dozens of wars and Moon colonies.

I better drop this now :)

heard Romney like the idea of a Moon base ...

… but only as a tax shelter

Although interestingly enough he reported earned interest income from accounts in Caymen Islands and Switzerland

with the exception of <$2000 of earned interest on a swiss account that was closed within the first month of the tax year and thus forgotten. Considerably smaller underreported income than the secretary of the treasury Tim Geithner while he was going through his confirmation hearings in 2009.

I think the consensus is that Romney behaved above-board and well within the law...

It’s the law that people are upset about.

Only because there is a very limited financial comprehension among the general population

Qualified dividends and long term capital gains are taxed at the 15% rate in part because they’re already taxed at the 35% corporate rate. If you’re a W-2 employee, you get paid out of revenue, not profit. If you’re a shareholder, you get paid out of profit alone (whether as a dividend or as a bump in shareholder equity and resulting stock price).

So if you’re a single person making $100,000 per year and claiming only the standard $6,500 deduction (rare, but for using this for simplicity), your taxable income is $93,500, and you’ll pay $19,797, or about 21% effective tax rate on federal income tax.

But if you’re the sole stockholder in a corporation, in order to make that same after tax income of $73,703, you need to make over $125,000 in profit:
$125,000 * 35% corporate income tax = $43750
125,000-43750 = 81250 paid as dividend
81250 * 15% dividend tax = 12187.5
81250-12187.5 = $69,062 after corporate and dividend tax

effective tax rate = (125,000-69,062)/125,000 = 44.75%

actually, my calculation in this example is slightly off because I forgot that the corporate tax doesn't hit 35% until you get over $100k, but it's still higher than individual income tax rates and the same principal applies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aix7tQMdJ3s

If I weren't married, I'd propose to you.

I keep trying to explain these things to my clients, friends, people at bars, Mass-goers, whoever I see that asks me about money.

Mitt’s got the dollars, but his tax rates are what they are for a reason. That’s not the reason to be anti-Mitt. The real reason is that he’s a serial killer….it was on TV so it must be true.

LMAO

I love the irony of Lithgow doing the voice since he was clearly the best serial killer ever featured on a season of Dexter.

I have plenty of reasons not to vote for Romney (his healthcare bill, his support for the imperial presidency, the fact that he is pretty much a white version of Obama {who himself was a black version of W} etc. etc.). His good fortune in life and his income are not those reasons. Although, Newt and Santorum are hardly compelling alternatives, and if a gun was put to my head and I was forced to decide between Mitt, Newt, Santorum, and Obama, I’d ask for a last meal and a final phone call to tell my wife I love her.

Newt kills me ... trying to re-invent himself as a "Washington Outsider"

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

Virtually the only time I've ever seen someone run for POTUS on the notion that

“I can outdebate that guy.”

W lowered the bar so flipping much. Newt, Obama, all of them say so many contradictory things in their speeches but are considered “great speakers” simply because they don’t stumble over every other word.

See my candidate below.

We’d need a ouija board or a vision from Heaven to get his take on things, but still.

And right on with your political take, too. The Prez is a party CEO—he’s the man (or she’s the woman) with VISION, who builds trust with the public and builds bridges with leaders on both sides.

Where have all the leaders/idea people gone? And who put these salespeople in their place?

I understand, he's simply taking advantage of the laws as they currently stand right now

and it’s not that I mind so much that he’s insanely wealthy and earns more in a couple of days than many earn in a year or more … rather, his cavalier attitude that “the poor have a safety net” and don’t matter

hate to tellya, Mitt … I’m intelligent, well educated, healthy and not ready to retire (and in fact not old enough to retire) but I still can’t get a job … that translates to me being dirt poor, and guess what, Mitt? there’s no safety net for me right now … none

more to the point, I don’t WANT a “safety net” … I want a damned JOB … is that so hard to comprehend? because if it is, then it’s not anyone I want “running” the country

His stated focus is on expanding the middle class

Now, there isn’t a universally recognized definition of middle class, but you’re a teacher no? Although not the highest paid field, the average teacher salary in Colorado is ~$44k (I’d recommend you move to Cali, that’s starting pay in a lot of our districts). That would be considered around about middle class for a single person. So even if you’re not earning that right now, his focus is on expanding and getting people back into the middle class, so his focus is on helping you (and one would think that his defense of the notion of a safety net would at least be welcome news to a progressive).

He isn’t talking about removing the safety net, but rather making sure it doesn’t become a hammock so that the people that fell out of the middle class can get back in it. Now, whether his overall policy prescription is capable of that is another issue. It may be a marginal improvement over the present, but absent serious reforms to entitlement spending which he has been AWOL on, I doubt he’d be as effective as he thinks.

if there were jobs there I just might move

last 3-4 years there are 100-500 applicants for every listed position … and those are the ones who already have Cali certification (every state requires their own cert, of course)

with the cutbacks in districts nationwide, there are literally thousands and thousands of unemployed erstwhile “middle class” citizens, and it’s not getting any better

what gets me is even when Obama has had the rare decent idea and tried to do something, he's been blocked by the right

the only way to “fix” it is to plow money back into America … can’t do that when it’s going to overseas investments (ex: CocaCola and $4 Bil to China)

so sure, let’s park money offshore and earn low-tax interest and then roll it over elsewhere for the good of the company and the stockholders, I get that … but it doesn’t help the 10 Million here needing jobs

CocaCola, and a lot of other MNCs make a considerable amount of money overseas

If anything, lowering domestic corporate tax rates would be a better way to entice them to repatriate those profits here, where they could be taxed. And you could try and make the lowering of the corporate tax rate somewhat offset through corresponding increases in the qualified dividend and capital gains rates (although I wouldn’t suggest a percent for percent trade off, as that would sap investment somewhat and have negative overall effects).

As for actual infrastructure investments abroad, if they wish to grow their market in a foreign country, given the cost of freight and weight of liquids, they have to establish operations within that foreign jurisdiction. They’ve saturated the American market, and if anything the switch over to health conscience choices domestically makes the US a less attractive market for investment of their primary product line.

Its all about competition

Most people think that ends in the market, and that couldnt be further from the truth.

ChiefWarPaint - February 3, 2012 reply

And the problem I (do) have with Mitt, and most everyone "running" is that....

There are NO real solutions being pitched. It’s all just a huge sales-job, and people just buy into it without asking, “Wait. What would the consequences be?”.

I’m considering writing in Lee Iacocca (you know, an actual leader) or maybe George Carlin …. his popularity is higher than Obama’s, common sense is more refined than Newt or Mitt, and he’s dead, so what the hell can we do to him now?

Might I suggest

Vermin Supreme

Performance Art Anarchist FTW

I don't want to be part of a nation, inDentured, either Vermin.

And does this government-issued toothpaste come in sensitive? Maybe even sensitive mint?

prop him up beside the jukebox?

This amounts, in effect, to a rigged system

Corporations are, by definition, legally seperate entities from their shareholders. Mitt Romney’s personal wealth is not at risk if a corporation he owns a stake in goes under (generally speaking).

Since they are legally seperate, the fact that Coporation X already paid taxes on an income should not have bearing on Romney’s tax situation. If a person is the sole shareholder in a coorporation that is only posting a $50,000 profit, than he should be taxed at a lower rate. When his profits are in the tens of millions, he should be taxed in a higher income bracket.

The general result of this is a system

where those rich enough to get all of their income from returns on investments don’t get as much of their income eaten up by taxes, and their wealth grows faster than those who get most of their income from actually working.

If you’re MItt Romney and you’re born into millions, it’s that much easier to make millions more. If you’re born lower middle class, no matter how hard you work, you’re probably still going to struggle to retire comfortably, put you kids through college, and you’re almost certainly going to be one medical disaster away from bankruptcy.

Corporations being a legally separate entity has bearing on the dicussion.

An investor is risking whatever money they are placing into that corporation, no more than what they place into it (putting aside options trades for the time being), but they are risking what they put into it nonetheless.

As for the tax treatment, the most critical thing to keep in mind is that money is a fungible commodity, and by extension so are taxes. If you need to earn >$130,000 pre-tax to keep $75,000 post tax, then it doesn’t matter what the percentage split between the corporate level and the dividend income level, the effective tax rate is the same.

chiefsandcigars - February 3, 2012 reply

Maybe we can put all the gold there

name it Fort Romney…most secure storage facility EVER!

So not free

Agree on the funding of wars/moon colonies though

Would rather fund my own HC though and pay less taxes because of it.

chiefsandcigars - February 3, 2012 reply

I'm not sure what the best answer is

But the fact that we spend several times more money on healthcare than any nation in the world and have some of the worst health-related stats among industrialized nations tells me that whatever it is we’re doing now is not working.

Little aggravates me more than hearing people say we have the “best healthcare in the world”. It might be true if you’re filthy rich, but the healthcare most Americans get via their employer is not even close to the best in the world.

Not to mention funding countries that hate you.

/Pakistan

Brsrkr - February 3, 2012 reply

So its not free then

ChiefWarPaint - February 3, 2012 reply

I thouhght the Thursday games were getting moved to NBC?

KingChief - February 3, 2012 reply

Where did you hear that?

I don’t think NBC wants to get rid of their Thursday night prime time lineup.

Nevermind, its the Thanksgiving night game

KingChief - February 3, 2012 reply

NBC would happily move their thursday night lineup for NFL regular season

a regular season game between the Jags and Seahawks will get double the marketshare of anything else they could run, including naked supermodels on trampolines.

Disagree or ABC wouldn't have booted MNF to cable

Tactical shift

virtually every household in the US that watches TV has cable, and ESPN is part of the most basic packages. Sports fans aren’t gonna watch ESPN while MNF is on, but non-sports fans would watch whatever sitcoms are on. ABC moved MNF to it’s ESPN so that it would have solid ratings while still being able to compete for the non-football viewing audience on it’s primary network.

Oh look, the common folk wanna watch games! BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Brsrkr - February 3, 2012 reply

greeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen'd!

epic win

Pacific Chief - February 3, 2012 reply

First monday night game of the year.

Chiefs vs Colts in Indi

The Peyton Manning led Kansas City Chiefs dominate the young rookie 37-10
Craig has to see a doctor about his 4 month long football induced errection.

Book it.

And Ups has to be talked down from a ledge.

I came here to make almost the exact same comment

The NFL is salivating for the possibility of Manning ending up on a team that faces the Colts next year.

I thought the Colts were coming to us?

NJChieffan16 - February 3, 2012 via mobile reply

Arrowhead will be rockin' if the front office

spends the money necessary to win a Super Bowl.

5280ChiefsFan - February 3, 2012 reply

Goodell is a total idiot. He is doing nothing but screwing up constantly, and coasting on the leagues popularity that was a result of Paul Tagliabue. Just like with the 18 game schedule debacle, he doesn’t seem to get that less=more. It doesn’t dawn on thim that part of the reason NFL fans are so rabid about the sport is because the regular season is only 17 weeks, and the longer offseason, compared to the other big sports, means that people have to wait longer for it, and that drives up the anticipation. In addition, the fewer days a week that it’s on means the more likelyhood that people are going to watch because they’ve been waiting for almost a full week. But if you start trying to cram football down our throats on more days during the week, then there’s a higher chance of overkill and for people to get burned out on the sport. Can’t wait til they replace him with a competant commissioner.

Topchief1 - February 3, 2012 reply

I'm not Goodells biggest supporter

…but lets not just bash him for every decision he makes, simply because he made it.

I think this is good everyteam gets a primetime game, and having 4 or 5 more primetime games per year hardly waters down the product.

wustl_chiefs_fan - February 3, 2012 reply

I honestly cannot remember any decision that he has made, or attempted to make that wasn’t terrible. like for example, appointing himself the discipline czar. Rediculous.

Topchief1 - February 3, 2012 reply

Or trying to push a football team back to an LA market that has already proven they won’t support NFL teams there, simply because of its market size.

Topchief1 - February 3, 2012 reply

Baseball is watered down

Hockey is watered down, basketball is watered down. I couldn’t get enough football if they fukin doubled it!

KCinIL - February 3, 2012 via mobile reply

Sounds like we need another league.

Brsrkr - February 3, 2012 reply

I don't agree with this.

Most NFL fans are willing to watch most games, as long as they’re competitive. So by having more primetime games, you’re allowing people to watch more football. Football isn’t close to being over-saturated.

but if they add a team in LA and go to 34 teams ...

we’ll get there soon enough

only so many “elite” QB’s right? so I hear … and I hear only “elite” QB’s go to the Super Bowl … that limits the number of possible champions right there, don’t you think?