HoustonSker

It's "strig." Touché, shame on me. I liked your corporate profits comment, profits are generally good, no nerve touched at all. When I first proposed simplifying the tax code, you expressed concern that this would cause the debt to skyrocket, thus it appeared that you were against it. Additionally, when I posed the question of whether or not you would have a problem with a flat 18.5% corporate tax rate, you never addressed the question. I understand a no response in itself doesn't mean you are against a flat 18.5%.

Horrible example man. Do you really want to belive everything a commision payed salesman tells you? Thats what happens when you ask a 'businessman' for advice. Most of them will give the advice that makes them more money, not nessicarily what is best for the nation. And in many cases the 'businessmen' are just 'investors' and it is not the same thing. And what is good for investors and speculators is often not what is good for most people. Stig...if you had bothered to read the above thread between Carl and myself, maybe you did, if so, read it again. You should have noticed I quote multiple prominent business leaders, certainly not salespersons or investors. The comparison is laughable in my opinion. Let's assume you have a business and want advice, who do you ask? I hope you wouldn't ask Carlfense. Stig, who should we listen to for advice on creating a more friendly business environment? Please enlighten me. Lastly, since I'm not and English teacher, you can take my advice...you need to practice your spelling.

I disagree. People will work hard for a middle class paycheck, not for a poverty level one. Either we rescue the middle class or we don't, and the only way to do so is through a comprihensive stimulus program. That would be paid for by ending our foreign wars and by increasing the taxes on the wealthy. If that makes me a socialist, then hell yeah I'll sign up for that label. Sub, I agree that the middle class need assisted, but I'm not clear on what your proposed stimulus would entail. We already had a stimulus and well, it didn't turn out too well, or at least it wasn't as effective as advertised. I would argue that if another stimulus was passed, it focus on creating private sector jobs that create wealth, not government jobs except for those involved in improving infrastructure. Ending foreign wars, fantastic. Increasing taxes the wealthy, I'm not sold. I don't like the thought of taking money from a specific group of people and letting the government allocate it as they see fit. If we're to have a stimulus, everyone pays in, rich, middle class, and poor. You're not a socialist, but I don't even think it's a good thing when people start calling for confiscation of someone else's earnings ("the wealthy") because they feel they could make better use of the money. How do you define "wealthy"? Are you talking about income, capital gains, total assets? All are uniquely different in terms of current tax structure. How is it 'confiscation of someone else's earnings' when I want the guy, like Romney, making millions a year to pay the same tax percentage as I do? And I'm talking anything that puts money into your pocket or bank account. Taxing capitol gains differently is simply a kickback to the donors to the politicians, and to many of the politicans themselves. That is what is primarily at issue. "Raising the taxes on the rich" is not an 'attack' or 'class warfare,' its leveling the playing field. My confiscation comment was regarding Sub's proposal that taxes on the wealthy be increased to pay for another stimulus. If you re-read my above comments, you'll notice I'm addressing his two suggestions in the context of another stimulus, ending foreign wars and increasing taxes on the wealthy to pay for a stimulus. Part of his proposal is that we tax Mitt Romney, for example, at a higher rate to pay for what Sub thinks would be a better use of Mitt's earnings, another stimulus. I disagree. Sub still hasn't gotten back to us on what that stimulus would entail. I suggest you do some reading on capital gains and why they are taxed at a lower rate than wage income. It's not due to campaign kickbacks. You should be interested to know that some countries have sub 10% capital gains taxes. You have to first understand and acknowledge the differences in income types to further understand the applicable tax rates. For the purposes of discussion, it's not accurate to dumb everything down to "anything that puts money in your pocket or bank account". I think we should increase taxes on the poor...is that class warfare? If you think it is, then how is that any different from what you have just stated, except in reverse? I agree that the playing field should be leveled. A flatter tax structure for all.

Carlfense, For medical advice or input, who do you talk to? A medical professional of course. For business advice, guess who are the best people to ask? Come one, I know you can guess this one...businessmen! However, you sound like you're proficient in business so forget what they say. Let's disregard what those in business say, what the hell do they know? Great attitude. Bail out? For Christ's sake man, can you read? My whole premise was absolutely not to "bail out" business, if you care to re-read what I proposed, but I'm sure you won't, you come across as lazy as exhibited in your failure to stay on topic or contribute anything of substance. Simplifying the tax code helps everyone, large and small companies. More middle class jobs/wages are a product of a vibrant economy and I think simplifying the tax code could lead to a more vibrant economy.

I disagree. People will work hard for a middle class paycheck, not for a poverty level one. Either we rescue the middle class or we don't, and the only way to do so is through a comprihensive stimulus program. That would be paid for by ending our foreign wars and by increasing the taxes on the wealthy. If that makes me a socialist, then hell yeah I'll sign up for that label. Sub, I agree that the middle class need assisted, but I'm not clear on what your proposed stimulus would entail. We already had a stimulus and well, it didn't turn out too well, or at least it wasn't as effective as advertised. I would argue that if another stimulus was passed, it focus on creating private sector jobs that create wealth, not government jobs except for those involved in improving infrastructure. Ending foreign wars, fantastic. Increasing taxes the wealthy, I'm not sold. I don't like the thought of taking money from a specific group of people and letting the government allocate it as they see fit. If we're to have a stimulus, everyone pays in, rich, middle class, and poor. You're not a socialist, but I don't even think it's a good thing when people start calling for confiscation of someone else's earnings ("the wealthy") because they feel they could make better use of the money. How do you define "wealthy"? Are you talking about income, capital gains, total assets? All are uniquely different in terms of current tax structure.

1. Do you care about the national debt and the deficit? If we lower taxes for everyone that debt is going to skyrocket. 2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That's not according to the EPA . . . that is according to science. The topic in question is how the country can create an environment that is more conducive to business start-up/expansion, not the national debt. However, I will respond. 1. Yes, however I think your assertion does not hold much merit. Currently, we have an extremely complex and convoluted corporate tax structure. It is full of subsidies and tax breaks for various industries based on political interference/favoritism/cronyism etc. Thus, we have completely different industries and companies paying different tax rates, largely based on these subsidies and breaks. One company may pay a 35% rate and another, GE for example, pays little to nothing. This creates an uneven playing field and adds costs for every business. If the tax code were to be simplified and all subsidies/tax breaks were eliminated (phased in as to not shock the system), this would streamline business decision making and remove a lot of uncertainty aka attractive and sexy to potential businesses. With that, companies paying above our very high tax rate (35% at the high end) would see their taxes lowered and those companies who benefitted from politically induced subsidies/tax breaks would likely see there taxes rise, thus the overall effect being a wash in terms of federal government tax revenue, hopefully. This also promotes the fabled '"fairness" that particular pols are always pining for. The same rules apply to everyone, at least that's how I interpret "fairness". Additionally, if lower rates attracted more businesses and resulted in increased earnings, higher government revenues could result. Lastly, concerning the debt...we have a major spending problem, not a revenue problem. 2. I never said CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas. My issue is the EPA's desire to regulate it as a pollutant, thus inflating costs for businesses and consumers. I could have stated that better, my apologies. 1. I apologize for addressing an effect of lowering taxes on the deficit when the original topic was encouraging business-friendly practices. Unfortunately, these issues are all linked. "Uncertainty" regarding regulations is a canard and the average effective corporate tax rate on Fortune 500 countries is around 18.5%. Considering the record profits that have been made with that taxation level it is difficult to argue that the rate is unduly burdensome. 3. Do you think that co2 isn't a pollutant? You’re correct, these topics are interrelated, however for simplicity’s sake; let’s stick with the original topic for now. So…you think that uncertainty posed to businesses via the tax system is a canard? I assume you don’t mean “duck”, but rather BS. You don’t have to believe me, just turn on the TV or read a business article, or better yet…listen to what businessmen are saying… Dan Danner, president of the National Federation of Independent Business, speaking in October 2011, “With the uncertainty and questions they have about taxes and health care and new regulations, they are just not willing to invest," Danner said. "They don't view this as a good time to take their precious money and risk it." http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=46&articleid=20111014_46_E1_CUTLIN393755 Andrew Liveris, CEO of Dow Chemical, in an interview in February 2011, "Well, I not only have high taxes; I have uncertain taxes," he said. "Right now, I have more regulations coming at me that are not fact-based, not science-based, not data-based. I actually don't even know what my costs are going to be in the next five years. And so I'm sitting back waiting for regulatory reform, and the government, of course, is now engaged on that—health care and the uncertainty around the health-care bill and what's going to end up happening there. Energy policy—we've got lots of uncertainty in the energy policy regimen. I mean, I can keep going, but that's half a dozen." http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/feb2011/ca2011023_063316.htm A recent article in The Economist surveyed Harvard business alumni concerning American business competitiveness. Their number one suggestion…simplify the tax code. http://www.economist.com/node/21543169 These are a few simple examples of the prevailing attitudes in American business, so don’t tell me uncertainty is a “canard” as if concerns about tax structure are frivolous BS. On a personal level, would potential taxes and regulations change your attitude towards spending or investing? I hope so. It’s incredibly simple to extrapolate this from the individual to a company, and this is the current case in American business. I’m glad you brought up the 18.5% effective rate. If the effective rate is 18.5%, let’s cut the current 35% rate and all subsidies/tax breaks and employ an 18.5% flat rate across all businesses. It would be no different than what we currently have, except tax processes and payments would be streamlined, allowing businesses to concentrate on their operations, expand, and hopefully create a more robust economy. Would you have a problem with that, and why? Lastly, given SubHusker’s original question on how to create a more business friendly environment, I’m interested to hear what you have to say…not merely questioning others’ proposals with simple sentences that lack detail. One of the first things I learned in the office was that if you are going to disagree with someone's idea, you had better have an alternative, otherwise you're not contributing to the conversation. Now is your chance...Carlfense, what do you think would create a more business friendly environment in the United States, and why?

1. Do you care about the national debt and the deficit? If we lower taxes for everyone that debt is going to skyrocket. 2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That's not according to the EPA . . . that is according to science. The topic in question is how the country can create an environment that is more conducive to business start-up/expansion, not the national debt. However, I will respond. 1. Yes, however I think your assertion does not hold much merit. Currently, we have an extremely complex and convoluted corporate tax structure. It is full of subsidies and tax breaks for various industries based on political interference/favoritism/cronyism etc. Thus, we have completely different industries and companies paying different tax rates, largely based on these subsidies and breaks. One company may pay a 35% rate and another, GE for example, pays little to nothing. This creates an uneven playing field and adds costs for every business. If the tax code were to be simplified and all subsidies/tax breaks were eliminated (phased in as to not shock the system), this would streamline business decision making and remove a lot of uncertainty aka attractive and sexy to potential businesses. With that, companies paying above our very high tax rate (35% at the high end) would see their taxes lowered and those companies who benefitted from politically induced subsidies/tax breaks would likely see there taxes rise, thus the overall effect being a wash in terms of federal government tax revenue, hopefully. This also promotes the fabled '"fairness" that particular pols are always pining for. The same rules apply to everyone, at least that's how I interpret "fairness". Additionally, if lower rates attracted more businesses and resulted in increased earnings, higher government revenues could result. Lastly, concerning the debt...we have a major spending problem, not a revenue problem. 2. I never said CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas. My issue is the EPA's desire to regulate it as a pollutant, thus inflating costs for businesses and consumers. I could have stated that better, my apologies.

You've asked two very different questions and I will attempt to address both. In response to the first question...simplifying and lowering taxes for everyone would be fantastic start. This way, every company plays by the same rules, thus ensuring a level playing field and predictability for businesses. No one company or industry receives particular benefits or is penalized. Think of the all of the 'green energy' companies who receive subsidies and/or tax breaks while other industries, oil and gas for example, are criticized for making 'windfall' profits. This directly plays into the theme of predictability. One of the major complaints against the current administration from business leaders is unpredictability, what new taxes and/or regulations are coming down the pipeline? Businesses have to factor this uncertainty into their business decisions, which includes expansion and hiring. When there's a lot of uncertainty, guess what, businesses don't expand or hire. That's part of the reason why corporations are sitting on so much cash. Concerning regulations...this is a tough one. I appreciate the EPA, the old EPA that cleaned up rivers and lakes. I dislike the new EPA that plays a bit of an activist role, classifying CO2 as a greenhouse gas that must be regulated and the like. A balance must be established and unfortunately if regulations are too strict, cumbersome, costly etc, businesses won't invest. Balance is paramount, and I think it's difficult for the EPA to find that balance because most of whom probably don't have much private sector experience, ie any experience in cost - benefit analysis. That's an assumption I made after reviewing the bios of some EPA adminstrators. Lastly, concerning your China question...none. There is little to nothing that Chinese business does that we should strive to emulate, they've built their export market on unskilled, low wage labor. I hope that's not what we want to import back into the US, unless people are willing to work for pennies. I would much prefer a manufacturing base like Germany's...highly skilled industrial workers who create meticulously engineered products. All in all, lowering and simplifying taxes along with reasonable regulations that businesses can understand and build into their decisions in a timely manner would create a much more friendly business environment. We must acknowledge that we are competing against the world and have to be able to attract investment.

It is an easy answer. The tents were gone, which the police were sent into remove, when the students were pepper sprayed. The police had no lawful basis to move the students. Even if they did, it is illegal to use such brutal force when there is no resistance. They don't even do that in prisons when prisoners do not resist. The chancellor of UC Davis doesn't want to give up her $500,000.00+ year job, but she must go. I'll take your word for it, the students weren't breaking any law(s). However, do the actions of one police officer dictate that the chancellor must resign? In my opinion, no. Unless, it can be proved that she directed the officers the officers to remove the students using any means possible, but that would have to be proven first. I think the correct course of action is to reprimand the lone wolf officer, not the university chancellor. I think it's sets a bad precedent if university chancellors, or anyone in a position of power, start getting axed for one-time actions of some goon subordinate.

Right, back to heart of the article...should the chancellor step down because the police pepper sprayed students who refused to comply with police demands to vacate the area? According to the English professor, she should. I admit I have my own preconceptions about university English 'professors', but I do not agree with that the chancellor should resign because one officer decided to season a small group of college kids. If anyone is to be punished, it should be those people who broke the law, either the officer who pepper sprayed the students and/or the students for violating some ordinance regarding squatting, unlawful assembly without a permit etc.

Is anyone really surprised? NASCAR fans appreciate military vets, as a vast majority of people do, however it's safe to assume that Southern conservatives attending the race aren't big fans of liberal Democrats. It's not an apples to apples comparison, but Sarah Palin was booed at a NY Rangers and Philadelphia Flyers hockey game and on Dancing with the Stars. While Michelle Obama is not as divisive as Sarah Palin, in my opinion, both women were out of their element during these occasions. In either case, it's better to simply not applaud rather than boo.

The only explanation I have is that it was an effort to try and dictate separation from the O-line, since, the D-line is absurdly good at picking their partner and "dancing" for the entire play. This is a great observation that I think needs more discussion as this has irritated me all season. Although I will not claim to be a defensive expert, I do not see the logic in this scheme. I think it's akin to the two-gap and/or Read & React defensive philosophy. By lining up a yard to a yard and half off the line, it gives the d-line more time to observe the play and then....ta da, react! However, by the time they're done thinking, they've been either pushed back two yards or stand straight up and perform a Vienna waltz with the o-line. This has worked in the past, however I think the only reason it worked so well was that we had Beast Mode Suh who wasn't going to be stopped, no matter what scheme was employed. Now that we have medicore players, the scheme is exposed and is a huge liabillity. Instead of being so GD stubborn, our defensive gurus should switch to a more aggressive scheme to be used by our d-line. Instead of thinking and adjusting one's play accordingly based on what the offense is doing, why not bust balls and try to disrupt the offense? And FFS, if you can't get pressure with the front four, send in a linebacker or safety to create some pressure, and for love of all things sweet and cuddly, let's not make it a delayed blitz with Cassidy...he'll show up in the backfield after the whistle has been blown.

As almost everyone has stated, if you're not sure what exactly you want to do, you're better off saving yourself thousands of dollars and going to a JUCO and earning credits that transfer to a larger school. If you end up going to larger school, say UNL right out of high school, you can always pick up a class or two during your summers off to save a little money, that's what I did. One thing I will add is that I don't think private schools are worth it, value wise. Unless you go for religious reasons or you receive scholarships that reduce the cost to state school level, JUCO and/or state schools are a better value. The 'Great Recession' has really opened my eyes to analyzing education and the job market after graduation. To me, it has made one thing abundantly clear...now more than ever, you must look at the value that a specific school/degree will provide for you later in life. In my experience, the bigger the school, the better in some sense. I don't mean to come off as some Texas sized jerk-off, I'm not a native, I just work here. What I mean by that is, on a resume, a well-known state school (example UNL, Iowa, Indiana) is more recognizable than a small school (think Truman State in Missouri or Hastings College). Also, more companies and recruiters attend these schools' job fairs, sponsor academics, serve on various Boards etc. I'm not degrading smaller schools by any means, but when thinking about what your future college can facilitate in terms of career prospects. Also, major in something that the job market demands. Develop a set of unique skills that you can offer employers...busines (not general, something specific like finance or accounting), science and engineering, hell, Golf Course Management works. This will greatly help you in the future job market. I know several people who majored in Sociology, Psychology, English etc and can't find decent jobs. That's because they didn't learn a unique skillset. Sure, those are interesting subjects (as electives), but what value can you create with an English major? There are exceptions of course, but play the odds on this one, a lot of time and money is at stake. I'm sure I came off as a prick with no emotion, but you really have to look at the cost/benefit...I'm an accountant.