Jump to content


Tulsa-Husker

Members
  • Posts

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Tulsa-Husker's Achievements

Recruit

Recruit (1/21)

0

Reputation

  1. How do I get access to post. I get on a thread and iit says I don't have access to relply. Also, how do I message friends

    1. Show previous comments  7 more
    2. GSG

      GSG

      I only got $250 NU, you better send the rest

    3. NUance

      NUance

      Okay. But all I got is nickels.

    4. Count 'Bility

      Count 'Bility

      You were banned before you even posted. That's so cute.

  2. The Reagan years were not an economic boom, that didn't happen until the fall of the Soviets when we were able to exploit foreign labor and markets while still keeping most Americans gainfully enmployed. Now that foreigners can do these middle class jobs,capitalism has sent them abroad at a pace where we could not recreate new jobs. Sub - you've read too much anti-Reagan revisionist papers. Not a boom - not sure where you were sitting in the later 1970s and the 1980s but the Reagan economy produced the longest and largest sustained job growth in many decades. The fall of Soviet Russia didn't occur until well into Bush #1's term - as a result of Reagan's policies that drove a wedge into the Soviet economy in several ways. (See Reagan's Secret War - one book detailing how this occured) Laffer: Reaganomics Created 21 Million Jobs Friday, 11 Feb 2011 08:40 AM By Greg Brown Art Laffer, the economist e and adviser to President Ronald Reagan, says the ultimate lesson of Reaganomics was that the right policies can create jobs — exactly what the economy needs now. Amid stagflation, high unemployment, and an oil s shock, Reagan took the highly criticized position that tax cuts were the answer. He slashed the top income tax rate to 50 percent from 70 percent and the lowest rate to 11 percent from 14 percent. Simultaneously, Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker embarked on a tight-money policy designed to rein in inflation, moving the inflation rate from a staggering 13.5 percent in 1981 down to 3.2 percent just two years later. “What the Reagan Revolution did was to move America toward lower, flatter tax rates, sound money, freer trade, and less regulation,” Laffer writes in The Wall Street Journal. “The key to Reaganomics was to change people's behavior with respect to working, investing, and producing.” Eventually, the higher tax rate on non-wage income (like investments) fell to 28 percent from 70 percent. Corporate tax rates fell, too. “Changing tax rates changed behavior, and changed behavior affected tax revenues. Reagan understood that lowering tax rates led to static revenue losses,” Laffer writes. “But he also understood that lowering tax rates also increased taxable income, whether by increasing output or by causing less use of tax shelters and less tax cheating.” The result: 21 million jobs created between December 1982 and June 1990, Laffer writes. “The true lesson to be learned from the Reagan presidency is that good economics isn't Republican or Democrat, right-wing or left-wing, liberal or conservative. It's simply good economics,” Laffer writes. In a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, President Barack Obama said he wants to cut the top corporate tax rate to 28 percent from 35 percent but also close “loopholes” enjoyed by many industries to keep the cuts “revenue neutral.” "You know how it goes: because of various loopholes and carve-outs that have built up over the years, some industries pay an average rate that is four or five times higher than others. Companies are taxed heavily for making investments with equity; yet the tax code actually pays companies to invest using leverage," Obama told a chamber audience. "As a result, too many businesses end up making decisions based on what their tax director says instead of what their engineer designs or what their factory produces. This puts our entire economy at a disadvantage. That's why I want to lower the corporate rate and eliminate these loopholes to pay for it, so that it doesn't add a dime to our deficit. And I am asking for your help in this fight," he said. http://www.moneynews...02/11/id/385725 
  3. What is the solution to OWS complaints? 1st what are the solutions offered by OWS (honest ? - I'd like to know)? Just taxing the rich more and redistributing that captured wealth only places a band aid on symptoms IMHO. It doesn't solve the problem. It may actually make the problem worse as the rich seek shelter from greater taxation overseas - moving assets and jobs overseas to less hostile environments. I do believe there needs to be a 'reset' in our economy. But not a reset by having bigger govt and enriching those who are favored by the party in control. I think we have to re-address the affect globalization has had on our economy and create incentivies that would allow business to bring capital back to the USA and re-invest here and create jobs here. We also have to change the focus of the average consumer - from the Walmart model - cheapest is best, to a 'guality, made in USA' is best. As consumers we craved the cheapest and we got goods manufactured in China and elsewhere by workers that held jobs once done by American workers. In 1946, 96% of what was consumed in the USA was made in the USA. That is why we had Happy Days economically in the 1950s and beyond. Nixon got us off of the gold standard but committed that we would make this up to other countries who were holding our currency reserves by buying their goods. Thus the move from us being the greatest exporter to the greatest importer - all at the cost to the American worker .
  4. How can we, in a Capitalist society, have any say in how much wealth our neighbors own? Do I get to decide how wealthy you can be? Well we have checks/balances. We don't alloy monopolies...or anything close to it like when we broke up the phone industry. This is what needs to be done to the banks. We can have taxes, income, estate, that keep the gap from getting too out of control. Don't get me wrong, having rich people is ok. We just the gap should be like it was back before the 80s.....and there were rich people back then. So you advocate scrapping Capitalism? To become what? Of course not....after all I'm a small business owner. As Sub said...there is a middle ground between 100% pure capitalism(we've never had it) and pure socialism. We had capitalism during the years I'm a fan of...the pre-80s. CB, pre 1980s was full of Nixonian price and wage controls, high inflation and other Jimmy Carter issues. The 1970s was a terrible time economically - we got off the gold standard, rising gas prices, etc. Recessions were a normal way of life. Some of that was fuel by the oil crisis (no pun intended) - gas going way up to $1/gal. A lot of people remember the 1950s as being 'Happy Days' - I wouldn't know but it was at the height of post war manufacturing and housing booms. We were the world's main manufacturer back then. That goes back to making manufacturing a back bone of our economy. I'm almost convinced that our unhappy days came about due to the increased globalization of our large companies and the resultant outsourcing of our manufacturing base. I would bet that if we had a strong manufacturing base it wouldn't really matter who was president - the economy would hum along inspite of the president. It seems like a foregone conclusion that we just have to accept a reduced manufacturing sector. I would like to see all presidential candidates address this issue more clearly, including our campaigner in chief with some solid comprensive plans (tax policies included) on restoring manufacturing. The best way to close the income gap is to create good jobs that don't require Masters Degrees that pay well - typically in the past - these were manufacturing jobs. I know Newt has some good ideas on this - I'd like to see more discussions from the other guys and gal.
  5. How can we, in a Capitalist society, have any say in how much wealth our neighbors own? Do I get to decide how wealthy you can be? Well we have checks/balances. We don't alloy monopolies...or anything close to it like when we broke up the phone industry. This is what needs to be done to the banks. We can have taxes, income, estate, that keep the gap from getting too out of control. Don't get me wrong, having rich people is ok. We just the gap should be like it was back before the 80s.....and there were rich people back then. CB, I won't do the "Brand thing"(inside joke) and point out your typo. Anyway, there is a place and time to look at monopolies. I'm not sure that any one financial institution could qualify - when you think of Standard Oil in the Teddy Roosevelt era, Ma Bell in the 1980s - these were clear monopolies. Now is there a clear monopoly like connection between Federal politicians and major banks - there may be. This is due to the break down in the proper relationship between the regulator and the regulated. Former congressmen should be prohibited from being able to lobby congress - current congressmen should be prohibited from receiving donations (real or proxy) from businesses that are regulated by committees they sit on. Of course the biggest monopoly is the federal govt itself. I'd like to see some of its power broken up and given to the 50 states (Education for example - Fed govt mandates to the states but does not provide funding in some cases). But that is a discussion for another thread.
  6. It seems that I'm not the only one questioning this! You humor me. I guess you haven't heard of Reed, Pelosi, Obama, Sanders,(your home state guy Sub), Frank, etc, They are at least as far left as any repub is right. Yes, I know, you don't consider Obama that liberal because he's in bed wt the corp and bank CEOs like Bush.
  7. Sub, I think Tony Snow was well respected by all sides - well before his untimely death. But you are right about the long line of clowns. These guys often have to defend the undefensible. Like being 'forced' to agree wt your wife in front of the kids when you know the kids might be right in this case.
  8. That was mine as well. Well stated. Tom didn't do the N. Dame thing and settle for a tie. If we had half a defense that year, the 83 team may have been ranked over the 95 team as the greatest ever. The loss to FSU in the same endzone 10 years later added salt into the wound - put the next year win against Miami healed it all.
  9. I can live wt that idea. Corn Bowl - couldn't they come up wt something more original and not so sterotypical?
  10. Austin no need to get excited. We are all glad we found a new home - and glad you are a part of it.
  11. Yeah, sure, blame the Tea Party for your possible shift in philosophy. If you are that weak in your convictions, it speaks of your character. Not the Tea Party per se, but the whole direction of the party. My convictions didn't change; the GOP changed. A party that rejects anyone who approaches moderation has no place for me. The GOP is no longer the party of Lincoln . . . hell . . . for that matter they are no longer the party of Reagan. They are the party of Palin/Perry/Cain/Limbaugh. Is there any wonder why the GOP will be tailing off with the deaths of the boomers? Enjoy your GOP extremism and personal attacks. What about the Democratic party leaving the Democratic party of Sam Nunn, Scoop Jackson, JFK, Truman and even HHH or even Bill Clinton ? Talk about extreme - we have leftist extremists running that party now.
  12. From today’s briefing: MR. CARNEY: Well, I believe the phrase from the Bible* is, “The Lord helps those who help themselves.” And I think the point the President is making is that we should -- we have it within our capacity to do the things to help the American people. The White House adds in the official transcript: * This common phrase does not appear in the Bible. http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/1111/oh_lord_f5028e26-955c-48c3-9038-bab764ba97b4.html The only guy worse then Carney as a press secretary is perhaps Obama's 1st press secretary. Both are...... (you fill in the blank) the video is on the link
  13. Wisconsin ripping NU is kind of a poor point in my book. Barry never coached there, he was a linebacker. It pains me to say it but if any place influenced him it was Iowa and Hayden Fry where he spent the most time as a coach before UW. "A lot of my philosophy was based upon the foundation I had starting at Nebraska," Alvarez said. http://espn.go.com/c...ska-cornhuskers Funny..... only a badger fan would not know that. I was trying to locate "The Greatest Video Ever" - Barry A brags about his days at NU.
  14. Agree 100%. There seems to be more top to bottom balance in the Big Ten. I like the long term traditions, rival games, etc. It will take us a while to get use to it, but perhaps some team will become our next OU. If it is someone other than Iowa, then I hope we could move the game to the day after Thanksgiving. It will be interesting to see what the chemistry of the PSU rivalry will be. I think the rival game would have some more significance if our true rival was in our division - competing for the div championship the day after Thanksgiving.
×
×
  • Create New...