huskerhill
-
Posts
1,288 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by huskerhill
-
-
I mean ... I'm not trying to be a jerk. But he's not exactly screaming "D1 RB" to me. And 245 might be light.
Maybe a plan B in case Miles goes elsewhere
-
-
I hope we're not slow playing this kid...
-
We sure this isn't for Isaiah Thomas?
-
1
-
-
Then wtf are we dragging our feet for? That's the kind of passionate player we need.
I can't remember the details. We talked about it a bit in some thread somewhere. I believe his dad played a year at Nebraska. Yes, big fans.
Assuming his parents are husker fans? LolMiddle name
And if TCU is interested, I trust he is legit.
Its obvious he's not that high on the coaches board. Why offer a plan d when you could get him In January if you need to?
-
OK. Seriously people. When I first saw this on my phone, there were 23 correct votes. But I couldn't get it to copy the list from there. By the time I get home, there are 30 votes.
Everyone has been given enough warnings. If you're caught voting after the announcement, you'll be removed from the contest.
OT Matt Sichterman
Who voted for: Nebraska
seaofred92, amhynes89, huskerfan92, Mavric, ADS, obert1, HuskerExpat, 1995 Redux, Dillrp4NU, huskerrulz, swmohusker, Judoka, bnilhome, sho, huskersrule95,Savage Husker, Dr. Strangelove, Squeaks, CMT1525, Thanks_Tom RR, NM11046,MattyIce, papio2chi, Hedley Lamarr, IllinioisHusker, theknife, Melby, Roger Dorn, Ed Helms, Husker2019
What a bunch of jabronies
-
Ok 4 star OT and tiny offer list?
He's a 2018 prospect
-
Woah, woah, woah. You better watch out. Some may mistake that realistic look at things for negativity.He says he is committed and no worries... But everyone has heard that before.
Get over it
What's the F gif from?
-
Woah, woah, woah. You better watch out. Some may mistake that realistic look at things for negativity.He says he is committed and no worries... But everyone has heard that before.
Get over it
-
1
-
-
He claims Nebraska is in the lead.
-
whether you structure it as a negative income tax or a basic income, in principle it's essentially the same thing, and Friendman discusses as much. It's just a small variant in how you calculate it.Well, I guess I'm not quite done because I need to say this.
I like what Friedman had to say on his plan of a negative income tax and agree with it. It also appears that he was the architect behind the EITC and I also think that is an effective tool. But someone here misrepresented his support of the program "basic minimum income" as outlined in the linked OP. MF did not support this thought of simply giving everyone a minimum income. He says as much in the 1968 video with William F Buckley. All of his comments in the video and in the linked article pertain to his negative income tax plan and the ideals of the EITC. I wholeheartedly agree with him on those things. He flat out said just giving people the minimum income won't work because it would destroy incentive to work. He supported a 50% (at least the example he used) negative income tax, he did not support the plan as presented in the OP.
All of the linked videos and articles seem to be in support of Friedman's negative tax plan. None of them support the "give everyone a minimum income" plan outlined in the OP linked article. I thought that was the plan being discussed here. Am I wrong about that? cm has repeatedly said "see the video" "read the linked articles", "they will address your concerns about inflation" he represented that they were in support of the mincome plan. They are not and the other articles do not mention inflationary concerns at all. The reason they don't mention inflationary concerns is because those comments are about Friedman's negative tax plan (which I like) and they are not about the "give everybody $20K or $30K" plan that keeps getting bantered about. That is the plan I don't think will work. This whole f'ing deal has been caused by somebody claiming Friedman supports it, which he doesn't, and by claiming this litany of articles debunk any inflationary concerns, which they don't.
So, which plan is it that you cm and you BRB seem to think is a good idea now? The mincome plan presented in the OP or Friedman's negative income tax plan dealt with in all the articles and video? It would vastly help the discussion if everyone was talking about the same thing.
But whether you write someone a check, give them a subsidy, or give them a tax break, that is a form of income from the government.
Giving everyone $20k just for being an American is not the same thing described by Freidman in that video.
-
1
-
-
But think of the time we could spend following the Huskers!!
To be honest, that sounds horrible...Wasn't the $20-$30k thrown out by BRB as an example?
From my lazy research, it would appear that a person on welfare will receive approx $10k a year. While I would agee with CM that getting rid of the numerous programs under wellfare would save quite a bit of money that could be put towards benefits, I don't think it would come close to providing the amount needed to give everyone that much money. I think our government has proven it is unable to slash spending so I doubt they would find other areas to fund the program.
I feel like I'm missing something now, also.
Correct, it would require political will. Maybe we don't have it. It would have to be coupled with holistic reforms of the tax system and the type/quality of people we attract to government.
Here's an interesting thought experiment:
Imagine a world that is completely automated, so that we can put production of goods and services on "cruise control" thereby retaining our GDP growth rate, but reducing the need for people to work.
In such a world, should we encourage people to stop working by simply cutting everyone a check and enjoy allow people to pursue less profitable, but potentially important pursuits, or even just increase their leisure time?
Would such a situation be different than an extension of the per/hour productivity improvements we've seen which have driven down the costs of goods and afforded people the ability to work only 40 hours a week?
Why keep people shackled to labor if we don't need to through automation or other efficiencies?
You had me at husk.... You had me at husk...
-
Wasn't the $20-$30k thrown out by BRB as an example?
From my lazy research, it would appear that a person on welfare will receive approx $10k a year. While I would agee with CM that getting rid of the numerous programs under wellfare would save quite a bit of money that could be put towards benefits, I don't think it would come close to providing the amount needed to give everyone that much money. I think our government has proven it is unable to slash spending so I doubt they would find other areas to fund the program.
I feel like I'm missing something now, also.
Correct, it would require political will. Maybe we don't have it. It would have to be coupled with holistic reforms of the tax system and the type/quality of people we attract to government.
Here's an interesting thought experiment:
Imagine a world that is completely automated, so that we can put production of goods and services on "cruise control" thereby retaining our GDP growth rate, but reducing the need for people to work.
In such a world, should we encourage people to stop working by simply cutting everyone a check and enjoy allow people to pursue less profitable, but potentially important pursuits, or even just increase their leisure time?
Would such a situation be different than an extension of the per/hour productivity improvements we've seen which have driven down the costs of goods and afforded people the ability to work only 40 hours a week?
Why keep people shackled to labor if we don't need to through automation or other efficiencies?
To be honest, that sounds horrible...
-
For as tyrannical and abusive as Bo supposedly was, his players and coaches were quite loyal to him (look at any number of reports, for example, about the 2003 team, the LSU squad that begged him to stay on for an NC, and many since then, like Suh, David and even Martinez, who was the target some infamous ire).
Oh right, right, that was because they were all suffering from battered wives syndrome... even guys like Ron Brown who had been around the block more than a few times and had a great relationship with Bo.
Probably right up to the point where Brown's face caught a nice loogie from Pelini. No way you're coming back from that one, Brown looked like he wanted to kill him.
Also, not all players were loyal. Stafford flat out hatted him. However, the Stafford argument on the sideline was one of the more humorous events during the Pelini era.
So he hated him so much that he followed him to YSU? I know he left shortly after being hired but that was take a job with another close friend and at a Christian University.
-
Couple of thoughts....
Please forgive me, as I am no expert in the field (I did take one Macro class in college, though), but I fail to see how this would cause inflation. If the $1 trillion (estimate I saw for welfare payments - people seem to debate the legitimacy of that value) is already in the system and being spent by those on welfare, I don't see how how shifting the money to a larger group of people to spend would cause problems, other than we'd be cutting the benefit to those currently receiving them by approx. 50%. Maybe that isn't a problem as I would imagine there are a lot of people just milking the system... but there are some that truly need it...
Also, I don't know why considering their economic beliefs are polar opposites, but for some reason I began reading 84's posts with Bernie Sanders/Larry David voice in my head and it was it quite enjoyable.... plan on doing it in the 'Crootin Forum.
If you redistribute the $1 trillion, each American would receive approximately $3...
The topic is paying $20-30K to every adult... Yeah, lots more government spending.
Check your work.....
-
Wasn't the $20-$30k thrown out by BRB as an example?
From my lazy research, it would appear that a person on welfare will receive approx $10k a year. While I would agee with CM that getting rid of the numerous programs under wellfare would save quite a bit of money that could be put towards benefits, I don't think it would come close to providing the amount needed to give everyone that much money. I think our government has proven it is unable to slash spending so I doubt they would find other areas to fund the program.
I feel like I'm missing something now, also.
-
Couple of thoughts....
Please forgive me, as I am no expert in the field (I did take one Macro class in college, though), but I fail to see how this would cause inflation. If the $1 trillion (estimate I saw for welfare payments - people seem to debate the legitimacy of that value) is already in the system and being spent by those on welfare, I don't see how how shifting the money to a larger group of people to spend would cause problems, other than we'd be cutting the benefit to those currently receiving them by approx. 50%. Maybe that isn't a problem as I would imagine there are a lot of people just milking the system... but there are some that truly need it...
Also, I don't know why considering their economic beliefs are polar opposites, but for some reason I began reading 84's posts with Bernie Sanders/Larry David voice in my head and it was it quite enjoyable.... plan on doing it in the 'Crootin Forum.
-
Anyone know what position he's being recruited at? Looks thick.. may grow into a DT?
-
Martell is labeled as a DT QB but that is kind of deceiving. His stats the last couple of years are on par with what POB put up his Jr. and Sr. years. POB actually has more rushing yards and rush TDs then what Tate has had. I know that will change cause Tate has another year but I just don't see Tate as a true DT QB. Here are Tate's stats for his So. and Jr. years.
So. 2537 yds. passing 40 tds. 2 ints. 433 rush yds. 5 tds.
Jr. 2608 yds. passing 32 tds. 6 ints. 604 rush yds. 9 tds.
Martinez, a transfer from San Bernardino Cajon before his senior year, had jaw-dropping statistics this season. The Nebraska-bound standout threw for nearly 3,000 yards and 28 touchdowns, and ran for 750 yards and 12 scores.
Martinez was labeled as an Athlete, not the #1 DT QB in the nation.
Point is, stats can be deceiving.
-
Martell is labeled as a DT QB but that is kind of deceiving. His stats the last couple of years are on par with what POB put up his Jr. and Sr. years. POB actually has more rushing yards and rush TDs then what Tate has had. I know that will change cause Tate has another year but I just don't see Tate as a true DT QB. Here are Tate's stats for his So. and Jr. years.
So. 2537 yds. passing 40 tds. 2 ints. 433 rush yds. 5 tds.
Jr. 2608 yds. passing 32 tds. 6 ints. 604 rush yds. 9 tds.
Martinez, a transfer from San Bernardino Cajon before his senior year, had jaw-dropping statistics this season. The Nebraska-bound standout threw for nearly 3,000 yards and 28 touchdowns, and ran for 750 yards and 12 scores.
-
Deontre is correct. Matching emojisI think its' Deontre Thomas who is supposed to announce on the 30th.
This is my guess
-
1
-
-
Everyone sells Lewis as a big bodied, red zone type threat. He's an outstanding talent, but what are people basing this off of? I've seen heights all the way from 6'1 to 6'3.5" for him, which (obviously) is quite a big difference.
Measured at 6'1.5" at Nike Open
-
Everyone sells Lewis as a big bodied, red zone type threat. He's an outstanding talent, but what are people basing this off of? I've seen heights all the way from 6'1 to 6'3.5" for him, which (obviously) is quite a big difference.
Measured at 6'1.5" at Nike Open
-
Probably means he had a kid.
How many stars?
DT Masry Mapieu [Louisiana Lafayette - Signed LOI]
in 2018 Profiles
Posted
I've seen others state the same. They must have changed it