BobcatAttack.com - For Fans of Ohio University Sports

Welcome Guest!
Create an Account

site search

where to watch

about us

advertise with us

help

BobcatAttack.com Message Board

General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events

Topic: RE: TOS to Grambling?

Topic: RE: TOS to Grambling?

Author

Message

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,067

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 5:50:34 PM

Note that I'm not in the Tea Party, and I don't speak for them. They may have a more defined agenda than I give them credit for, but so far as I know the primary "goal" is a reduction in the deficit. As an example, when presented with the across-the-board cuts in the sequester, they favored those. Had the cuts been 5% to Department B and 15% to Department A, instead of equal amounts to both, I think that would be fine, too.

As for claiming that Tea Party members can come from both parties, I agree that most of them currently come from the Republican party. Given that the core position is fiscal responsibility, I don't see why that needs to be true, nor why it will necessarily continue to be true in the future. I strongly disagree that all fiscally responsible people are Republicans, and that no Democrats are fiscally responsible. Certainly there is little evidence of fiscal responsibility in the current administration, but Democrats regimes under both Clinton and Carter were fiscally responsible, while Republicans, especially under Reagan, were not.

Note: I edited my earlier post to insert the clause "to significantly reduce the budget".

Last Edited: 10/23/2013 5:52:59 PM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 6:50:20 PM

L.C. wrote:

Robert Fox wrote:

Interesting, LC, but you'll have to further explain the $40,000 payment concept. Not sure I'm following you there.

Most people are used to thinking of taxes as starting from $0=$0 taxes. A line doesn't have to go through the point 0,0, thought. It can start at -40000,0. In essence, it already does, actually. People with no income already get the rough equivalent of $40,000 in benefits, and as their income rises the benefits decrease, until at some point, they become net taxpayers. I'm just proposing integrating it all into a single, comprehensive system.

On the consumption tax, the negative start was necessary to make the system progressive. With a consumption tax, everyone, starting at $0, would have to pay tax. Starting with a negative credit, and then offsetting that with a higher tax rate, allows it to be progressive.

A similar "crackpot idea" deals with oil and gas consumption. If you want to encourage alternate energy, you could do what we are doing - have the government try to pick winners. They could pick things like corn-based ethanol, or new batteries, or electric cars, and pour money into them. That has worked really well so far. Alternately you could take the approach of discouraging gasoline consumption, and let the free market, and entrepreneurs find and fund alternatives. Thus, suppose you put a $5 a gallon tax on gasoline. People would drive a lot less, and buy more efficient cars, and look for other alternatives, wouldn't they? But, it would suck a lot of money out of people's pockets, and damage the economy. Suppose you tried to make it revenue neutral, to avoid that. You could start everyone with a $3000 credit, but then tax them $5 a gallon on any gas they buy. Well, some people would bike, and keep the $3000. Others would keep driving Hummers, and pay $12,000 in tax. In the end, you'd have a revenue neutral program, yet significantly decrease gasoline usage, and dramatically increase market interest in alternatives. If ethanol turned out to be an economically viable alternative, great. If electric powered cars did, great. In the end, though, the market would choose the winners, not some half billion dollar grant given to a campaign contributor.

Are you talking about what amounts to a $40,000 "credit" that each American tax payer would receive at the beginning of the year, or are you talking about an actual $40,000 payment? If it's the latter, we're talking about 8 trillion dollars of expenditure.

Regarding your second paragraph, without getting into the nuts and bolts of your argument, I have a problem with the premise: I don't want the government "picking winners," but I also don't want the government to "discourage" consumption by playing around with taxes. Your idea is a creative concept, but still awards winners and losers based on the whims of whoever is in office.

mf279801
General User

Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Newark, DE
Post Count: 2,452

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 7:19:23 PM

L.C. wrote:

Robert Fox wrote:

Interesting, LC, but you'll have to further explain the $40,000 payment concept. Not sure I'm following you there.

Milton Friedman described a similar system as an alternative to wellfare, termed it the Negative Income Tax I believe. It was intended to get around the disincentive-to-work effects of wellfare: rather than have wellfare benefits disappear at a given threshold (say $12,000 of income), they would taper off (e.g. between $12,000-$24,000) so that each additional dollar of earned income would translate to increased purchasing power. I'm sure this is an imprecise and somewhat confusing explanation, so I've included a link to Wikipedia's page on the topic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

Kevin Finnegan
General User

Member Since: 2/4/2005
Location: Rockton, IL
Post Count: 1,084

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 7:37:18 PM

L.C. wrote:

As for claiming that Tea Party members can come from both parties, I agree that most of them currently come from the Republican party. Given that the core position is fiscal responsibility, I don't see why that needs to be true, nor why it will necessarily continue to be true in the future. I strongly disagree that all fiscally responsible people are Republicans, and that no Democrats are fiscally responsible. Certainly there is little evidence of fiscal responsibility in the current administration, but Democrats regimes under both Clinton and Carter were fiscally responsible, while Republicans, especially under Reagan, were not.

I have to believe our definitions of fiscal responsibility differ quite a bit. I don't think supporting across the board cuts without thought of what is being cut is fiscally responsible. I don't believe supporting the shutdown of the government over a preexisting law shows fiscal responsibility. Personally, I don't believe blocking legislation for undocumented immigrants that the CBO says would add billions of dollars (I believe more than $150 billion over ten years) as fiscal responsibility. Cutting research and development across the board as well shows no fiscal responsibility, so far, little supported by the tea party caucus appears to be focused on what seems to be fiscal responsibility.

OhioCatFan
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,016

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 8:25:43 PM

mf279801 wrote:

L.C. wrote:

Robert Fox wrote:

Interesting, LC, but you'll have to further explain the $40,000 payment concept. Not sure I'm following you there.

The Friedman plan was essentially what President Nixon proposed in a national TV address to the nation. At the time I thought it was a great idea. Unfortunately, for reasons that I've never understood, after Nixon's speech he had a bill introduced in the House of Representatives and then got cold feet and didn't use his bully pulpit to get it through Congress and the whole idea died. I'd certainly like the idea to be updated and considered again.

The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,067

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 8:38:46 PM

The converse, not agreeing to any cuts at all is not fiscally responsible, either. If you don't like across the board cuts, why not suggest some others? That's the piece that is missing. I don't seen anyone suggesting ANY cuts at all. My expectations for Washington are very low. I expect only further partisan politics, no substantial cuts, and plenty of pork to go around.

The reason that I don't get excited about the Tea Party one way or another is that to me they are fighting a battle that can't be won. Its a problem with this form of government, unfortunately. There is a good reason why the Founding Fathers created the Constitution in such a way as to limit the Federal Government's power to tax and spend - they were aware of the problem, and tried to avoid. it. We, as a country, decided those protections were no longer necessary, and now we must face the consequences.

Since neither or a Republic, nor a Democracy, can help but spend itself into bankruptcy, eventually the day comes when austerity is imposed externally, when the market is no longer willing to buy Debt. We aren't far from that now, and I have forecast that it will come in the next 20 years. Some predict it could come even earlier, in the 2013-2018 time period. With it now taking over 20% of our income tax receipts to pay just the interest on the debt, with interest rates at historically low rates, it is hard not to see a serious problem. By 2020 we may see 50% of the income tax being spent on just interest. Note also that once the market senses that the debt can not be paid, interest rates will rise rapidly, and these projections could turn out to be very low.

In any case, whether it is soon, or a decade or two from now, it is clear that we are headed to the day when fiscal responsibility is imposed externally, when the markets refuse to buy US Debt. At that point we will have much more drastic cuts in spending, and increases in taxes than if we were to deal with the problem today.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

The Situation
General User

Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 8:41:07 PM

finnOhio wrote:

I don't believe supporting the shutdown of the government over a preexisting law shows fiscal responsibility.

As was introduced earlier, your .gov boys got paid, and then some. So I'm not really sure what you're getting at.

The government shutdown little more than a fiscal Y2K. No blood, no foul.

And as for blaming the Tea Party, have you nothing to say about Democrats controlling the House, Senate, and Oval Office in 2011? If the community organizer of the Democratic party was a little bit more than just that he could have prevented this "irresponsible" shutdown. Maybe he could've just gotten the gang together for another propaganda tour (but this time talk about a budget instead of marriage, or immigrants, or guns, or Trayvon Martin).

But hey, it's a matter of public record that Obama was pro-government shutdown (when it was politically convenient in 2006).

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. ... I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

-- Barack Hussein (March 16, 2006)

I say all this and I will add that America was built on shutting down over pre-existing laws. If the rule of law was worth shutting down for a tax on tea it sure as Hell is worth shutting down for being taxed for refusing to buy health INSURANCE (I mean these "poor" people do realize it's health INSURANCE right? People need a little more than antibiotics when s#*! gets real. When they get a lump, or a kidney failure, or you name it, there's a whole heck of a lot MORE money they still need to pay fix their misfortune).

(Also see blacks and women about pre-existing laws)

finnOhio wrote:

Personally, I don't believe blocking legislation for undocumented immigrants that the CBO says would add billions of dollars (I believe more than $150 billion over ten years) as fiscal responsibility

finnOhio wrote:

Cutting research and development across the board as well shows no fiscal responsibility, so far, little supported by the tea party caucus appears to be focused on what seems to be fiscal responsibility.

I was going to comment on the two quotes above but I'm just out of time. I will ask that before you tell us how much money something is going to make, tell us how much it's going to cost. And clearly define the risk (best and worst case scenario) involved in the alleged return of paying said cost.

I will also say, that as a former grad student who worked on a NSF grant, research and development performed by government employees are anything but fiscally responsible.

The Tea Party is not some aimless collective of loud noises (that finnOhio, was the Occupy Movement).

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,067

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 8:58:12 PM

The Situation wrote:

....The Tea Party is not some aimless collective of loud noises (that finnOhio, was the Occupy Movement).[

While i'm in predicting mode, I'll predict that we haven't seen the last of the Occupy movement, either. They are the exact antithesis of the Tea Party. I see the Occupy movement as a precursor to a more full-fledged Nazi movement. Much of their central rhetoric was based around condemnation of "banksters", a term with ethnic overtones, intended to mean "Jewish Bankers".

Once we reach the day when austerity is imposed, the Occupy movement will gain tremendous power, and they will become much more open about their language. Look at Greece, where the pain of austerity has given birth to a new Nazi movement, the Golden Dawn party. The same will happen here. Since people never want to admit their own failures, people will blame "banksters" for the fact that we got ourselves too deep into debt. Is it really because of Jewish bankers that we can't stop spending? Hardly. It's because every dollar that gets spent is precious to someone, and no one is willing to give it up, even a little.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 9:21:34 PM

L.C.--We all like you. But your sense of doom seems overdone.

There are problems here and on the horizon. Those problems may be bigger than we've faced for a while. But we'll get through some how most likely.

The unforeseen could change things either way. I think there will be change and consequences. But nothing so immediately dire.

Have more faith in American ingenuity and ability to find a path!

Where's the band?!
WHERE"S THE BAND?!

DesignspiritUSA.com
The Pets On The Go Collection of pet gear travel bags
The Holiday Tote Bigg Bagg Collection--over-sized, reversible, extra pockets; now love carrying packages as much as you love shopping!

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,067

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 9:47:40 PM

Monroe, it's not like I'm predicting anything novel, or unusual. I'm just predicting that things will run the normal course for our form of government, as they have so many times in the past, whether you look at ancient times (Rome/Greece), relatively modern times (various South American and African republics), or current events (Greece, etc). There is nothing about Americans that makes them immune from following history. It's going to happen - even the founding fathers knew that. The only question is when.

I'm more optimistic than some, because I think we'll survive the current downturn, and my generation can retire in prosperity as we plunder our nation's future, and leave nothing but debt for your generation. It's really not a problem our generation will have to deal with, it's one that will be all yours. That's why I said that in time it will divide on generational lines, rather than party lines. Anyway, sorry for leaving you such a mess. Until it ends, "Party on dudes".

Last Edited: 10/23/2013 10:02:02 PM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,478

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 10:11:29 PM

The Situation wrote:

Paul Graham wrote:

ts1227 wrote:

The Situation wrote:

Zaleski wrote:

It seems to me that Grambling should be held up as a bright shining example of the Tea Party's idea of higher education. If the football team has it so bad just imagine what the dorms and science labs must be like. Nice going Louisiana!

Get a clue bozo. If the tea party was in charge of that budget they wouldn't have sports.

Tax payer dollars are precious; not birth-rights for money pits.

If the Tea Party was in charge those kids would never have a chance to go to college, because they would be slaves.

Best post of the year!

The Tea Party was in Boston little boys.

2nd that for best post of year!

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,478

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 10:14:16 PM

L.C. wrote:

The Situation wrote:

....The Tea Party is not some aimless collective of loud noises (that finnOhio, was the Occupy Movement).[

The

The difference is the occupy movement has zero seats at the table.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,067

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 10:23:55 PM

BillyTheCat wrote:

The difference is the occupy movement has zero seats at the table.

That's true now, but unfortunately, it probably won't always be. When austerity comes, things turn ugly. In any case, I've said my peace. As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Now it's time to beat Miami.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

Kevin Finnegan
General User

Member Since: 2/4/2005
Location: Rockton, IL
Post Count: 1,084

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 10:33:27 PM

L.C. wrote:

Sine its a foregone conclusion that the US is headed down the path that Greece has recently taken, the question then becomes how accurately one can predict when we will arrive there, and how best to survive it.

I thought this was the most ill-conceived comment in the entire thread, assuming it's a foregone conclusion just because you state it as such when many economists say the exact opposite. As is pointed out here and here and here (which are just the first three articles that come up on Google when you search 'United States Greece') in articles written from both sides of the spectrum, we are far from Greece. First, we borrow off our own currency, which means we get to set our own rules, making the likelihood of default microscopic. Contrast that with Greece, which does not control its own currency, putting it at the mercy of others, their problem is far different from ours. Compare Greece to Detroit, sure. Compare Greece to the United States? Come on.

L.C. wrote:

I thought that first quote was the most ill-conceived until this one was written. I, too, enjoy most of your posts. I don't mind a different viewpoint, often welcome it. I come from a house where I'm the only left-leaning member of my immediate and extended family. Love to hear the other side. But this is classless. That this isn't removed by the mods would shock me.

You earlier stated that you agreed that one of the problems in the national discussion is that discussions turn to demagoguery. I'm pretty sure that stating that the Occupy movement is a precursor to a 'more full-fledged Nazi movement' would classify as demagoguery. I don't find myself as someone who finds much common ground with either the tea party or the occupy movement, but have not ever resorted to bashing the group as bigots as a whole. I am appalled at the ignorant members of the left that hear a couple of people at a tea party rally say something racist and insensitive and assume that the group is a bunch of idiots that want the slave trade back. At the same time, comments from the right that the occupy movement is akin to Nazis because of a couple of 'code words' used by select few shows a level of discourse that has crossed a line.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,067

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 11:31:00 PM

I thought I was through, but I will answer your post, since it raises some extremely valid questions that definitely need to be addressed.

Thanks for those links. I do strongly agree with them, in part. I agree that the fact that our debt is denominated in dollars makes us semi-immune to a collapse. That is actually why, unlike many, I don't think the problem is imminent, but a generation in the future. Having the debt denominated in dollars, we could simply print 17 trillion dollars, and pay it all off. The problem is, what comes next? If the US would then have a surplus, there would be no problem at all. If not, there would be a problem because printing that much would create a one-time massive inflation, and having been paid in devalued dollars, lenders would be skeptical about lending to the US again. Still, the fact that it is an option does give greater strength to the US Debt. It also eliminates the treat of hyperinflation that you sometimes hear bandied about.

The other point in those articles that I strongly agree with is that it makes a great deal of difference to whom you owe the money. In Japan, they have a massive debt, but it is to their own citizens, and therefore no problem. In the US, there was a massive debt after WWII, but again it was to our own citizens, and therefore, not a major problem. The problem here is that increasingly the US debt is held, not by our own citizens, but by foreigners. We have had a large current account deficit for the last 30 years or so, and that is reflected now in who holds the debt.

So, the question is, will we go from point A (where we are not like Greece) to point B (where we are like Greece)? I think the answer is yes. We are already seeing it in the increasing foreign holdings of our debt. I think that increasingly we will see pressure on the US to issue debt no longer denominated in dollars. Instead the market will increasingly demand "inflation adjusted" bonds. These are already being issued, and are called TIPS. This sounds like no big deal, but economically it is very significant. You see, if the government does print more money, that increases inflation, and thus increases the amount to be repaid. That means you can no longer print your way out of debt. Thus the bond, while on its face is denominated in dollars, is really denominated in an absolute basis that is not dollars at all. That, combined with the fact that our debt is no longer held primarily by us, will make all the difference in the world, and so, while we are immune today, I don't believe we will be immune a generation from now. I don't know the market share of TIPS bonds, unfortunately, but I suspect that it is growing, and will continue to grow, especially if inflation starts to pick up again with a recovering economy.

As regards my comments on the Occupy movement, note that I did not say "they are Nazis". My point is that they use language similar to early language of the Nazi movement, and I said that I consider then a precursor of a future Nazi movement. To clarify my position further, I don't believe that current members are Nazis, nor do I think that most realize the similarity of their movement to the early history of nazis, but that doesn't mean that similarity isn't there. If you google "occupy wall street nazi" you'll get over 1.5 million hits, so my observation of the similarity is not isolated, or just "out of the blue".

I will further add that I am neither Jewish, nor a banker, but I find the term "banksters" offensive since it is intended to be a racial epithet. Whenever I encounter it, I try to make sure the person using it is aware of it's meaning. Again, I don't assume they are a racist - I assume they are not one, but are unknowingly using a racist term.

By they way, I did a search for "tea party racism" and got 62 million hits, and I have been reading them, but I can't seem to find what anyone seems to think the connection is, other than that they think "Tea Party is Right wing" and "right wing is racist". I did find this link that kind of explains that the Tea Party has evolved from what it once was, a basically Libertarian grass roots organization, and into an arm of the political right, where it is probably more racist than it originally was. I haven't kept up to date, I guess, and was still aware of the Tea party in it's original form. In any case, all racism should be decried wherever it is found.

Last Edited: 10/24/2013 11:42:17 AM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

OhioCatFan
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,016

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/24/2013 1:00:02 AM

L.C. wrote:

. . . By they way, I did a search for "tea party racism" and got 62 million hits, and I have been reading them, but I can't seem to find what anyone seems to think the connection is, other than that they think "Tea Party is Right wing" and "right wing is racist".

For the record, it was the 19th Century Republican Party that freed the slaves. The party was then, as it is now, somewhat on the conservative side. This is not the conventional wisdom but has been the conclusion of several scholars in recent years. One book that delves into this is by Heather Cox Richardson, then of Harvard, who traces the roots of Republican anti-slavery ideology. She finds that while some Republicans were against slavery for religious and moral reasons many more opposed slavery because of their conservative economic beliefs. These were based on the notion that no man had a right to build capital on the basis of another man's sweat. It was a policy of free labor and free soil. Though at the time they were called "Radicals" by some; it was not the radicalism of the left. It was a philosophy opposed to collectivism and very much built on the principles of individual rights and personal responsibility. These are conservative not liberal principles, in a general way. For the record, after Reconstruction some "Redeemer" (racist) governments in the South were put in place by parties calling themselves "Conservative" (e.g., North Carolina) but what they sought to "conserve" were not individual rights but the exact opposite. By conservative they actually meant a reactionary return to the social order of the past. Now, the whole issue is a lot more complicated than this brief description, but I thought it relevant to the discussion at hand to point out we should be hesitant to associate "right wing" or "conservative" with "racist." In fact, as a general statement, I find many folks are way too quick to accuse those they disagree with philosophically as "racists." The recent fund-raising flier by a certain congressman from Florida comparing the Tea Party with the KKK is a good example. (Be sure to read the update toward the bottom of this story with the reaction of a former black GOP congressman, a member of the Tea Party, whose family knew of and witnessed real KKK violence when he was growing up in Georgia.)

Last Edited: 10/24/2013 10:04:28 AM by OhioCatFan

Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/24/2013 9:37:03 AM

Interesting, finn. It wasn't this comment that got you: If the Tea Party was in charge those kids would never have a chance to go to college, because they would be slaves.

Instead, it was this one: I see the Occupy movement as a precursor to a more full-fledged Nazi movement. Much of their central rhetoric was based around condemnation of "banksters", a term with ethnic overtones, intended to mean "Jewish Bankers".

One of the preceding comments was an empty, direct slur (one that BTC finds irresistible). The other was a supposed comparative with supporting reason.

How do you let the first one slide and get offended by the second one? How do you do that and continue any meaningful debate?

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,478

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/24/2013 9:55:27 AM

So, question, those of you that are against excessive taxation, how do you feel about the high subsidy rate of OHIO Athletics based on the student fee system. Because a fee is simply a tax by another name. This fee goes to a very small % of the student population, and the masses receive very little in terms of tangible benefits. No more than a persons property values are increased by quality social and safety services.

Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/24/2013 10:04:09 AM

Simple. Students don't HAVE to pay it. They don't HAVE to go to school there.

And if you are not against excessive taxation, I suppose you are in favor of excessive taxation.

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,478

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/24/2013 10:08:42 AM

I do not have to buy gas or food stuffs either, that's a choice. I do not have to own a home (property taxes), I do not have to smoke or drink (sin taxes), I do not have to work (payroll taxes), most all taxes are optional in one way or another. So back to my question, how do you justify student fees (taxiation) going to athletics? not just at OHIO (though we are dispporationally, but at most all schools.

When I lived in Chattanooga, I always drove to Georgia to buy my groceries, now I simply hunt, fish, and grow 95% of all my family consumes.

Last Edited: 10/24/2013 10:12:49 AM by BillyTheCat

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,478

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/24/2013 10:17:32 AM

OhioCatFan wrote:

L.C. wrote:

Read an excellent article the other day in the change of the direction and current division of the Republican Party, focused on the Rockefeller Republicans, and drawing parallel's to the party ideology under Nixon and later prominent GOP leaders up through Regan and Gingrich. Was a very good read. For the life of me though I cannot think of where I found this.

Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/24/2013 10:26:54 AM

BillyTheCat wrote:

So what is your point then? If students choose to attend Ohio, then they choose to accept that fee (or tax). No one is forcing them to pay it, so there willingness to do so constitutes some form of acceptance.

And let's be serious. A sin tax may be optional, but a payroll tax most certainly is not. At least not for 99% of Americans. Obamacare is also NOT optional, is it?

On the other hand, if you are a college student who is anti-athletics and does not wish to support ANY athletic fees, there are numerous opportunities for education that require no such fee.

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,478

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/24/2013 10:41:17 AM

Robert Fox wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

My point is these fees are taxes, and if a person wants a college education they are taxed for athletics....I just am trying to point out that on one hand some of you are against excess taxation, except when you are for it.

Kevin Finnegan
General User

Member Since: 2/4/2005
Location: Rockton, IL
Post Count: 1,084

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/24/2013 10:49:24 AM

Robert Fox wrote:

Great point, and I agree, the first comment is far more inflammatory. I did not consider the first one part of what was a pretty intellectual debate, I did consider the second one however as part of an on going educational discussion. Not an excuse, however.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,067

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/24/2013 10:50:22 AM

BillyTheCat wrote:

You have to keep in mind that the subsidy is required only because of Title IX. If you changed the premise and eliminated all subsidies, and let each support fund itself based on revenues that it generates, I would have no trouble supporting that. That would simplify the Grambling situation, too. The football program could have whatever things (new floors, food, etc) that its own revenue could support.

In any case, Robert is right. The University puts together a package deal that it thinks will be attractive to students. That package includes facilities, Professors, athletics, Museums, landscaping, etc. Then it sets a price for that package. If students like that package, they come to Ohio. If they don't, they choose another school that offers a different package they prefer.

Last Edited: 10/24/2013 10:55:27 AM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

Showing Replies:	101 - 125 of 130 Posts
Jump to Page:	< Previous 1 \| 2 \| 3 \| 4 \| 5 \| 6 Next >

View Other 'General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events' Topics

There are 264 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com

264 Guests
0 Registered Users

There are no other users looking at this page.