MBB: Great South Athletic Conference

[old_lion]

Apology accepted.  I apologize for using the word "silly" ... not very diplomatic of me.  I am actually enjoying the theoretical discussion.

While your facts may be correct, IMHO, they are not particularly relevant to the overall well-being of our economy.

My point remains that Akeem Lunchpail (and millions like him) aren't going to give a rat's a$$ about the fairness of the tax code or our theoretical discussion ... if the "fiscal policies of change" result in us all facing higher prices (that fits with your regressive concern) and the predictable increased likely hood of more of us not having wages at all.

I understand you are retired, but surely you still have friends still out there, trying to operate in this economy.  Talk to some of them. The layoffs, the reduced benefits, etc. are already happening ... and it will only get worse if we raise taxes.  I'm not making this stuff up ... there is historical precedent.

Things were tough in 1929 when the market crashed.  But things didn't hit rock bottom until 1932 when we tried to tax our way out of it.  The top marginal rate (on the rich) went from 25% to over 60% ... we see how well that worked.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EDJI&t=my&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=alBsmRS72DyM&refer=columnist_shlaes

Excerpted from the above, in case you don't have the patience to read the entire article ...
Finally, there was Hoover's tax policy. Today every fool, right or left, knows that imposing a tax increase in an economic downturn is like kicking a wounded man in the stomach.

Yet in the dark days of 1932, with unemployment at 20 percent, Hoover perversely signed an increase that reversed the multiple cuts by his predecessor, Calvin Coolidge.

Hoover more than doubled rates at the bottom of the tax schedule. He also increased the top marginal tax rate to 63 percent from 25 percent. The effect was predictable. That tax error has haunted economists ever since.

And don't tell me the socialism of Roosevelt's New Deal was the answer, either ... that was just a band-aid.
What finally ended the misery of the Great Depression was the economy revving, job producing aspects of WWII.  We don't want that kind of "solution" again ... so let's not raise taxes, like Hoover did in 1932, and make it worse.

[Mr. Ypsi]

old_lion,

I too am enjoying the back and forth - not many 'political' discussions stay so civilized!   It appears that we are getting some backlash from other posters (though if it weren't for us, the board would be completely dead lately! ); I'm more than willing to go to PMs or the 'politics' board if you wish (it's your board - I'm just a visitor!).

Obama is a very practical man (even most of the conservatives acknowlege that, even if, during the campaign, they tried to paint him as a Marxist - that's just politics ).  I seriously doubt there will be ANY tax increases until the economy has stabilized, and even then I don't really anticipate much beyond allowing the Bush cuts for the wealthy to expire.  He is NOT going to raise marginal tax rates to 60+%! 

I agree with you that tax hikes are counter-productive AT SOME POINT; I just don't think the hikes Obama has ever talked about are anywhere near that point.  But it is also true that deficits are counter-productive at some point.  At the rate the deficits have risen under W (when he inherited a record surplus), we may face spending on productive things being crowded out by rising debt-service.  At this point in time, I trust Obama to strike a wiser tax/spend/deficit balance than the Republican Party leaders.  (Of course, Obama doesn't directly write legislation - I'm somewhat less confident of Congressional leaders, but hopefully he can mostly hold them in line.)

My 16-year-old recently started his first job, and was appalled (despite warning beforehand ) at the discrepancy between his 'gross' and 'net'.  I explained to him that (come springtime) he would get all his income taxes back, but not his FICA (or whatever the current term is).  And, of course, if the 'gloom-and-doom' crowd are correct, he will NEVER get his FICA back.  Fortunately, I have great faith that that crisis is yet another one that we will somehow 'muddle through'.

[Spencer Beaty]

GO SCOTS

[Hawks88]

Go Hawks!!

[old_lion]

old_lion,

I too am enjoying the back and forth - not many 'political' discussions stay so civilized!   It appears that we are getting some backlash from other posters (though if it weren't for us, the board would be completely dead lately! ); I'm more than willing to go to PMs or the 'politics' board if you wish (it's your board - I'm just a visitor!).

Obama is a very practical man (even most of the conservatives acknowlege that, even if, during the campaign, they tried to paint him as a Marxist - that's just politics ).  I seriously doubt there will be ANY tax increases until the economy has stabilized, and even then I don't really anticipate much beyond allowing the Bush cuts for the wealthy to expire.  He is NOT going to raise marginal tax rates to 60+%! 

I agree with you that tax hikes are counter-productive AT SOME POINT; I just don't think the hikes Obama has ever talked about are anywhere near that point.  But it is also true that deficits are counter-productive at some point.  At the rate the deficits have risen under W (when he inherited a record surplus), we may face spending on productive things being crowded out by rising debt-service.  At this point in time, I trust Obama to strike a wiser tax/spend/deficit balance than the Republican Party leaders.  (Of course, Obama doesn't directly write legislation - I'm somewhat less confident of Congressional leaders, but hopefully he can mostly hold them in line.)

My 16-year-old recently started his first job, and was appalled (despite warning beforehand ) at the discrepancy between his 'gross' and 'net'.  I explained to him that (come springtime) he would get all his income taxes back, but not his FICA (or whatever the current term is).  And, of course, if the 'gloom-and-doom' crowd are correct, he will NEVER get his FICA back.  Fortunately, I have great faith that that crisis is yet another one that we will somehow 'muddle through'.

Mr Y,

I don't see much to take issue with there ... and I more than agree with your statement re congressional leaders.  Let's put it this way ... if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were on fire, I wouldn't ____ on them to put them out.      Oh well, there went civilized.   

Have a great weekend.   

[wilburt]

Go Bulldogs and long live the President-Elect!!!!

[bballlover]

Anyone know anything about the Lagrange-Huntingdon scrimmage?

[KnoxCounty22]

Old Lion,

I will be going to the alumni game. I believe the UGA/Auburn game is 745.

I went to the mens basketball exhibition tonight. Tennessee looked decent against Tusculum. They have a lot of athletes but some of the freshman's man to man defensive fundamentals are awful. Scotty Hopson is a great athlete but just a flat out showboat. Pearl has a lot of talent but outside shooting is going to hurt them. Tatum, Hopson, Woolridge, and Chism are streaky, and when Chism is one of your better three point shooters you are in trouble.

After being in Knoxville for 2 years know I will give you my honest opinion on the Vols. You know Im a huge fan but I will say that people in Knoxville believe that Tennessee is better than what they really are. Its almost as if they have no idea that any other teams exist. I think the media in Knoxville hurts the athletic program more than it helps them.

[Spencer Beaty]

I do know that the finals of the GSAC soccer tournament is tomorrow.  MC vs. Piedmont!

[Spencer Beaty]

Old Lion,

I will be going to the alumni game. I believe the UGA/Auburn game is 745.

I went to the mens basketball exhibition tonight. Tennessee looked decent against Tusculum. They have a lot of athletes but some of the freshman's man to man defensive fundamentals are awful. Scotty Hopson is a great athlete but just a flat out showboat. Pearl has a lot of talent but outside shooting is going to hurt them. Tatum, Hopson, Woolridge, and Chism are streaky, and when Chism is one of your better three point shooters you are in trouble.

After being in Knoxville for 2 years know I will give you my honest opinion on the Vols. You know Im a huge fan but I will say that people in Knoxville believe that Tennessee is better than what they really are. Its almost as if they have no idea that any other teams exist. I think the media in Knoxville hurts the athletic program more than it helps them.

I'll agree with that for the most part...

[wilburt]

After being in Knoxville for 2 years know I will give you my honest opinion on the Vols. You know Im a huge fan but I will say that people in Knoxville believe that Tennessee is better than what they really are. Its almost as if they have no idea that any other teams exist. I think the media in Knoxville hurts the athletic program more than it helps them.

I know the feeling 

[Spencer Beaty]

MC just had a scrimmage that had both good and bad elements.  No one shot very well from the perimeter, but MC had pretty good defense.  Hernandez played very well, but there wasn't much depth in the post after him. 

[mattgrubb]

randy will have them ready

[old_lion]

The problem is, the majority of people are not "half way paying attention."  All they heard was, "He's going to give me stuff and cut taxes on 95% of us."  (I've heard it said that a key watershed moment, a declining point, in all the world's great democracies was when the masses realized they had the power to freely vote themselves benefits ... and leave the costs/repercussions for someone else, future generations, to deal with.) 

Mr Ypsi,
Re a topic that I touched on briefly a few days ago ... a friend of mine sent around an email that I think you'll find interesting reading ... it even has some comments from a professor from Minnesota ... I believe that's currently a blue state ... Keep Hope Alive!   

I don't know how much you'll agree with ... heck, I don't know how much I agree with ... but it certainly is thought provoking.   

The email: How Long Do We Have?
 
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the   University  of   Edinburgh  , had this to say about the fall of the  Athenian   Republic  some 2,000 years earlier:
 
'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'
 
'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.'
 
'From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'
 
'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years'
 
'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
 
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
 
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
 
3. from courage to liberty;
 
4. from liberty to abundance;
 
5. from abundance to complacency;
 
6. from complacency to apathy;
 
7. from apathy to dependence;
 
8. from dependence back into bondage'
 
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law,   St. Paul ,   Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000  Presidential election:
 
Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
 
Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000
 
Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million
 
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1
 
Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...' Olson believes the   United States  is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.    

And apparently, that was written a few years ago ... I wonder where he'd say we are now ...

[Mr. Ypsi]

old_lion,

I'd say that Professor Olson pretty thoroughly tipped his hand with the grotesque stereotypes in the final paragraph.  Are you sure this guy is "Joe the Law Professor" and not "Joe the (unlicensed) Plumber"?

And while Professor Tyler's theory sounds plausible in the abstract, it alas has the drawback of being historically completely false.  I believe there are 3 countries that have surpassed the 200-year limit on democracies, and I don't recall hearing about the dictatorships in Iceland, Switzerland, or the U. S.

As to the "somewhere between complacency and apathy" characterization - sure didn't feel that way last Tuesday!