Welcome Guest! Create an Account login email: password: remember me: BASKETBALL Latest News News Archive Schedule/Results Multi-Media Recruiting FOOTBALL Latest News News Archive Schedule/Results Multi-Media Recruiting MESSAGE BOARD Message Home - Ohio Basketball - Ohio Basketball Recruiting - The O Zone - Ohio Football - Ohio Football Recruiting - Ohio Volleyball - Ohio Baseball - Ohio Olympic Sports... - General OU Discussion... - Website Feedback... - Posting Policy Edit My Profile Private Messages Logout CHAT LINKS site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp Message Board BobcatAttack.com Message Board Ohio Basketball Topic:  RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial Topic:  RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial Author Message catfan28 General User Member Since: 6/11/2011 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 1,503 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/25/2018 11:32:26 AM  BillyTheCat wrote: This is NOT the NCAA doing this, this is federal racketeering charges. Not sure why so many people are trying to pan the NCAA on this issue. These people are in violation of federal law. And these folks are not facing jail time over a game of basketball, they are facing jail time for their actions. I understand that. I just fundamentally disagree with what our legal system is focusing on and ruining lives for. Slipping some extra bucks to basketball players - if that's a "crime" - is something I could care less about. Again, dynamite to an ant hill. Back to Top catfan28 General User Member Since: 6/11/2011 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 1,503 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/25/2018 11:34:46 AM  OhioStunter wrote: The latest TV deal for March Madness brings in $8.8 BILLION to the NCAA. The latest TV deal for CFB Playoffs brings in $5.6 BILLION. Who is not getting rich off the backs of athletes? Virtually no one. That money gets spread around to member institutions to the point where the vast majority of schools are getting a pittance. 95% of those schools proceed to lose millions of dollars on athletics. Back to Top BillyTheCat General User Member Since: 10/6/2012 Post Count: 9,530 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/25/2018 11:51:21 AM  catfan28 wrote: BillyTheCat wrote: This is NOT the NCAA doing this, this is federal racketeering charges. Not sure why so many people are trying to pan the NCAA on this issue. These people are in violation of federal law. And these folks are not facing jail time over a game of basketball, they are facing jail time for their actions. I understand that. I just fundamentally disagree with what our legal system is focusing on and ruining lives for. Slipping some extra bucks to basketball players - if that's a "crime" - is something I could care less about. Again, dynamite to an ant hill. So you do not have an issue with point shaving or fixing of games then? After all, shouldn't be anything wrong with slipping a few bucks to basketball players. Back to Top OhioStunter General User Member Since: 2/18/2005 Location: Chicago Post Count: 2,516 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/25/2018 11:55:59 AM  catfan28 wrote: OhioStunter wrote: The latest TV deal for March Madness brings in $8.8 BILLION to the NCAA. The latest TV deal for CFB Playoffs brings in $5.6 BILLION. Who is not getting rich off the backs of athletes? Virtually no one. That money gets spread around to member institutions to the point where the vast majority of schools are getting a pittance. 95% of those schools proceed to lose millions of dollars on athletics. If by "virtually no one" you mean the millions of dollars annually that NCAA execs, ADs, conference commissioners and coaches make in salary, then I guess no one is getting rich. I agree that by the time the money makes it to schools, everyone else has had their hands in the pot. But I believe that a model that brings in about $16 BILLION in outside revenue, doesn't pay player labor costs, has different tax responsibilities, gets Federal and taxpayer subsidies, gets uniforms and equipment paid for, and still leaves schools clawing for cash to keep track, wrestling, baseball and swimming programs alive is a very "mismanaged" model. Back to Top catfan28 General User Member Since: 6/11/2011 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 1,503 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/25/2018 12:57:27 PM  BillyTheCat wrote: So you do not have an issue with point shaving or fixing of games then? After all, shouldn't be anything wrong with slipping a few bucks to basketball players. Totally different. That impacts gambling outcomes - which would be equivalent to, say, creating a computer virus to change slot machine outcomes. Obviously, that passes the "smell test" as a real crime. Trying to pay kids to come to a certain school? Completely unethical...but doesn't bother me from the "criminal" standpoint in the least. Everyone has their own personal thresholds of what should be "illegal". This just doesn't move the needle for me at all. Back to Top catfan28 General User Member Since: 6/11/2011 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 1,503 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/25/2018 1:03:53 PM  OhioStunter wrote: If by "virtually no one" you mean the millions of dollars annually that NCAA execs, ADs, conference commissioners and coaches make in salary, then I guess no one is getting rich. I agree that by the time the money makes it to schools, everyone else has had their hands in the pot. But I believe that a model that brings in about $16 BILLION in outside revenue, doesn't pay player labor costs, has different tax responsibilities, gets Federal and taxpayer subsidies, gets uniforms and equipment paid for, and still leaves schools clawing for cash to keep track, wrestling, baseball and swimming programs alive is a very "mismanaged" model. I don't disagree with this premise. Again, I think salary caps would be a good thing. Administration (particularly at the NCAA level and P5 schools) is bloated. But ultimately, even reforms there wouldn't create too much extra for schools. You divide those gaudy contracts by the number of years and number of schools, and it quickly starts to erode. College athletics just isn't a "business" - plain and simple. If it were, it would have gone bankrupt years ago. Most schools can only stay afloat due to student fees and transfer payments from the general fund. Back to Top BillyTheCat General User Member Since: 10/6/2012 Post Count: 9,530 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/26/2018 8:28:31 AM  catfan28 wrote: BillyTheCat wrote: So you do not have an issue with point shaving or fixing of games then? After all, shouldn't be anything wrong with slipping a few bucks to basketball players. Totally different. That impacts gambling outcomes - which would be equivalent to, say, creating a computer virus to change slot machine outcomes. Obviously, that passes the "smell test" as a real crime. Trying to pay kids to come to a certain school? Completely unethical...but doesn't bother me from the "criminal" standpoint in the least. Everyone has their own personal thresholds of what should be "illegal". This just doesn't move the needle for me at all. And funneling money illegally to get athletes to attend certain schools is also "illegal". Put simply, these guys violated the Federal Statutes and their actions were criminal. Back to Top catfan28 General User Member Since: 6/11/2011 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 1,503 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/26/2018 9:48:05 AM  BillyTheCat wrote: And funneling money illegally to get athletes to attend certain schools is also "illegal". Put simply, these guys violated the Federal Statutes and their actions were criminal. Agree to disagree. Just let the NCAA handle it. Total waste of taxpayer money, time and resources IMO. Back to Top Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame General User Member Since: 7/30/2010 Post Count: 3,304 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/26/2018 12:19:48 PM  catfan28 wrote: BillyTheCat wrote: And funneling money illegally to get athletes to attend certain schools is also "illegal". Put simply, these guys violated the Federal Statutes and their actions were criminal. Agree to disagree. Just let the NCAA handle it. Total waste of taxpayer money, time and resources IMO. It's not clear to me how the NCAA could handle this. What mechanisms does the NCAA have at its disposal to punish employees of Adidas? A stern talking to? Back to Top BillyTheCat General User Member Since: 10/6/2012 Post Count: 9,530 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/29/2018 12:52:01 PM  catfan28 wrote: BillyTheCat wrote: And funneling money illegally to get athletes to attend certain schools is also "illegal". Put simply, these guys violated the Federal Statutes and their actions were criminal. Agree to disagree. Just let the NCAA handle it. Total waste of taxpayer money, time and resources IMO. More importantly, the NCAA does NOT deal with FEDERAL LAW!!!!! And you guys want to complain about the money the NCAA brings in, you do realize that for every investigation they have to spends millions on hiring investigators and lawyers to do due dilligence Back to Top catfan28 General User Member Since: 6/11/2011 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 1,503 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/29/2018 3:48:21 PM  BillyTheCat wrote: More importantly, the NCAA does NOT deal with FEDERAL LAW!!!!! And you guys want to complain about the money the NCAA brings in, you do realize that for every investigation they have to spends millions on hiring investigators and lawyers to do due dilligence We seem to be talking past each other here. Of course, I realize that the NCAA doesn't deal with federal law. My contention is that, if truly any of this is a "federal crime", it is a very dumb statute and a total waste of time for our legal system. At the end of the day, we're talking about a game. If some unethical boosters or shoe companies try to influence recruiting, that seems like an ethical issue that should be dealt with by the NCAA. Involving the FBI is patently ridiculous. But, then again, much about our legal system is ridiculous. A conversation for another time and place... Back to Top giacomo General User Member Since: 11/20/2007 Post Count: 2,634 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/29/2018 6:15:36 PM  Let's see....if a college team makes it to the Sweet 16, Elite 8, Final 4 and maybe wins the championship, the money that flows to the schools and conferences is large. The coaches salaries go up tremendously. That's why they cheat. It's quite a bit more than "unethical". It's criminal. Back to Top catfan28 General User Member Since: 6/11/2011 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 1,503 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/29/2018 7:18:18 PM  giacomo wrote: Let's see....if a college team makes it to the Sweet 16, Elite 8, Final 4 and maybe wins the championship, the money that flows to the schools and conferences is large. The coaches salaries go up tremendously. That's why they cheat. It's quite a bit more than "unethical". It's criminal. Agree to disagree. Just doesn't move the needle for me. Much bigger problems in this world, IMO. Back to Top Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame General User Member Since: 7/30/2010 Post Count: 3,304 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/29/2018 8:19:42 PM  catfan28 wrote: giacomo wrote: Let's see....if a college team makes it to the Sweet 16, Elite 8, Final 4 and maybe wins the championship, the money that flows to the schools and conferences is large. The coaches salaries go up tremendously. That's why they cheat. It's quite a bit more than "unethical". It's criminal. Agree to disagree. Just doesn't move the needle for me. Much bigger problems in this world, IMO. I'm super confused about your stance. On the one hand, you think that letting players legally accept endorsement money is a Pandora's Box that will ruin college sports, but on the other, you don't care if shoe companies pay players under the table and any investigation into that is a waste of tax payer money. I agree with you on the second point. This isn't a big deal. At all. These kids deserve the money. But that being the case, I don't understand the adament disagreement with players accepting legal endorsement money. Isn't that far less of a Pandora's Box than the under the table system with no oversight you're proposing? Back to Top catfan28 General User Member Since: 6/11/2011 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 1,503 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/29/2018 8:46:48 PM  Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: I'm super confused about your stance. On the one hand, you think that letting players legally accept endorsement money is a Pandora's Box that will ruin college sports, but on the other, you don't care if shoe companies pay players under the table and any investigation into that is a waste of tax payer money. I agree with you on the second point. This isn't a big deal. At all. These kids deserve the money. But that being the case, I don't understand the adament disagreement with players accepting legal endorsement money. Isn't that far less of a Pandora's Box than the under the table system with no oversight you're proposing? Shoe companies and boosters have been trying to sway recruiting for a long time. Do I wish it didn't happen? Sure. But that's reality. If anyone should step in with harsher penalties (against schools themselves), it's the NCAA. But as a taxpayer always concerned with the overreach of big government and our legal system, it find it ridiculous that the FBI is wasting its time on this. On the other hand, I'm completely against making the system of endorsements legalized. I think it would be a huge blow to schools like OUrs that are doing things the right way. In short, my views here just reflect two personal opinions I'll always stand up for: 1. Government is best when its smaller, and I'd rather hold onto my money than let bureaucrats waste it. 2. The little guy is worth fighting for, whether its small business, Appalachia or G5 programs (and below). Back to Top Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame General User Member Since: 7/30/2010 Post Count: 3,304 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/30/2018 12:10:44 PM  catfan28 wrote: Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: I'm super confused about your stance. On the one hand, you think that letting players legally accept endorsement money is a Pandora's Box that will ruin college sports, but on the other, you don't care if shoe companies pay players under the table and any investigation into that is a waste of tax payer money. I agree with you on the second point. This isn't a big deal. At all. These kids deserve the money. But that being the case, I don't understand the adament disagreement with players accepting legal endorsement money. Isn't that far less of a Pandora's Box than the under the table system with no oversight you're proposing? Shoe companies and boosters have been trying to sway recruiting for a long time. Do I wish it didn't happen? Sure. But that's reality. If anyone should step in with harsher penalties (against schools themselves), it's the NCAA. But as a taxpayer always concerned with the overreach of big government and our legal system, it find it ridiculous that the FBI is wasting its time on this. On the other hand, I'm completely against making the system of endorsements legalized. I think it would be a huge blow to schools like OUrs that are doing things the right way. In short, my views here just reflect two personal opinions I'll always stand up for: 1. Government is best when its smaller, and I'd rather hold onto my money than let bureaucrats waste it. 2. The little guy is worth fighting for, whether its small business, Appalachia or G5 programs (and below). Just a general observation, and one that I think you yourself made earlier, but I always find it odd how different people's political beliefs often are in different contexts. For instance, you're anti-big government but in this case fully supportive of NCAA bureaucracy which is essentially 'big government' for college sports that places artificial market constraints on schools and athletes. Just funny how differently people would react if their entertainment wasn't at stake. Anyhow, I've made this point prior, but I don't think you're sticking up for the little guy here. I think you're actually just putting your own self-interest above the needs of the little guy. The little guy, to me, is Delvar Barret who scrapes by while taking care of his Mother. It's not the Ohio University Athletic Department or Saul Phillips who makes 600k a year. Agree to disagree, I guess, but if Adidas was willing to throw Delvar 1000 bucks a month instead of giving that money to Saul, I'd much prefer that. And if that means Zion Williamson makes a couple million dollars a few years earlier than he would have otherwise, I'm cool with that. Back to Top catfan28 General User Member Since: 6/11/2011 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 1,503 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/30/2018 5:54:25 PM  Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: Just a general observation, and one that I think you yourself made earlier, but I always find it odd how different people's political beliefs often are in different contexts. For instance, you're anti-big government but in this case fully supportive of NCAA bureaucracy which is essentially 'big government' for college sports that places artificial market constraints on schools and athletes. Just funny how differently people would react if their entertainment wasn't at stake. I'll 100% admit that my own self-interest is at play. If I was a fan of, say, O$U or Florida, my views would probably be much different. But as someone supportive of a G5 program as well as a few D3 programs, I'm vehemently against something that would let the rich get richer. Although I'm against "big government", such constraints are needed in sports so as to have any semblance of competitive balance. As a lifelong Pittsburgh Pirates fan, I wish that MLB would take more steps in that regard too. Back to Top BillyTheCat General User Member Since: 10/6/2012 Post Count: 9,530 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/30/2018 9:15:17 PM  catfan28 wrote: Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: I'm super confused about your stance. On the one hand, you think that letting players legally accept endorsement money is a Pandora's Box that will ruin college sports, but on the other, you don't care if shoe companies pay players under the table and any investigation into that is a waste of tax payer money. I agree with you on the second point. This isn't a big deal. At all. These kids deserve the money. But that being the case, I don't understand the adament disagreement with players accepting legal endorsement money. Isn't that far less of a Pandora's Box than the under the table system with no oversight you're proposing? Shoe companies and boosters have been trying to sway recruiting for a long time. Do I wish it didn't happen? Sure. But that's reality. If anyone should step in with harsher penalties (against schools themselves), it's the NCAA. But as a taxpayer always concerned with the overreach of big government and our legal system, it find it ridiculous that the FBI is wasting its time on this. On the other hand, I'm completely against making the system of endorsements legalized. I think it would be a huge blow to schools like OUrs that are doing things the right way. In short, my views here just reflect two personal opinions I'll always stand up for: 1. Government is best when its smaller, and I'd rather hold onto my money than let bureaucrats waste it. 2. The little guy is worth fighting for, whether its small business, Appalachia or G5 programs (and below). And too my point earlier, organized crime has been trying to influence players for years as well. You find one a problem and the other not, however, when you get your claws into someone the entire pandora's box opens. Back to Top BillyTheCat General User Member Since: 10/6/2012 Post Count: 9,530 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/30/2018 9:19:13 PM  catfan28 wrote: Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: I'm super confused about your stance. On the one hand, you think that letting players legally accept endorsement money is a Pandora's Box that will ruin college sports, but on the other, you don't care if shoe companies pay players under the table and any investigation into that is a waste of tax payer money. I agree with you on the second point. This isn't a big deal. At all. These kids deserve the money. But that being the case, I don't understand the adament disagreement with players accepting legal endorsement money. Isn't that far less of a Pandora's Box than the under the table system with no oversight you're proposing? Shoe companies and boosters have been trying to sway recruiting for a long time. Do I wish it didn't happen? Sure. But that's reality. If anyone should step in with harsher penalties (against schools themselves), it's the NCAA. But as a taxpayer always concerned with the overreach of big government and our legal system, it find it ridiculous that the FBI is wasting its time on this. On the other hand, I'm completely against making the system of endorsements legalized. I think it would be a huge blow to schools like OUrs that are doing things the right way. In short, my views here just reflect two personal opinions I'll always stand up for: 1. Government is best when its smaller, and I'd rather hold onto my money than let bureaucrats waste it. 2. The little guy is worth fighting for, whether its small business, Appalachia or G5 programs (and below). Says a fan of "small government" Ronald Reagan, who grew government at an un-prepresented rate. And how can you fight for the "little guy" when the big guy buries them in cash and tilts the playing field. It's great to have ideals, just as long as they are not fairy tales. you have never lived in the small government utopia you dream of. You ignore that as long as big business exist you need bigger government. Back to Top BillyTheCat General User Member Since: 10/6/2012 Post Count: 9,530 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/30/2018 9:21:32 PM  catfan28 wrote: Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: Just a general observation, and one that I think you yourself made earlier, but I always find it odd how different people's political beliefs often are in different contexts. For instance, you're anti-big government but in this case fully supportive of NCAA bureaucracy which is essentially 'big government' for college sports that places artificial market constraints on schools and athletes. Just funny how differently people would react if their entertainment wasn't at stake. I'll 100% admit that my own self-interest is at play. If I was a fan of, say, O$U or Florida, my views would probably be much different. But as someone supportive of a G5 program as well as a few D3 programs, I'm vehemently against something that would let the rich get richer. Although I'm against "big government", such constraints are needed in sports so as to have any semblance of competitive balance. As a lifelong Pittsburgh Pirates fan, I wish that MLB would take more steps in that regard too. Problem is, the NCAA is not government and has to rely on government to uphold laws that they (government themselves, has established). Back to Top catfan28 General User Member Since: 6/11/2011 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 1,503 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 10/30/2018 11:03:12 PM  BillyTheCat wrote: Says a fan of "small government" Ronald Reagan, who grew government at an un-prepresented rate. And how can you fight for the "little guy" when the big guy buries them in cash and tilts the playing field. It's great to have ideals, just as long as they are not fairy tales. you have never lived in the small government utopia you dream of. You ignore that as long as big business exist you need bigger government. A lot to unpackage for a response...but a few general points: - I don't view Reagan as infallible. He (and most other conservatives) have been largely ineffective at shrinking the bureaucracy. The only guy with some success at it? He currently resides in the Oval Office. We still have a long way to go, though, to make as big of an impact as I'd like. - I freely admit that I've never lived in the small government utopia that I dream of. Wish I did! :) Hah - You're right that it's the government's job to uphold laws. It's just that a lot of those laws probably shouldn't exist. Bottom line: my view on college sports comes through the lens of someone who roots for the underdog. Frankly, I could care less about the "big boys" and athletes that will go on to make millions. That's not the reason I'm a fan of college sports. Back to Top giacomo General User Member Since: 11/20/2007 Post Count: 2,634 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 11/2/2018 8:48:24 AM  https://sports-law.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-basketball-ho... More commentary on the trial. This guy says, and I agree with him, if the ncaa was not involved the players would merely be getting signing bonuses and endorsement money. Back to Top Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame General User Member Since: 7/30/2010 Post Count: 3,304 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 11/2/2018 6:31:25 PM  catfan28 wrote: BillyTheCat wrote: Says a fan of "small government" Ronald Reagan, who grew government at an un-prepresented rate. And how can you fight for the "little guy" when the big guy buries them in cash and tilts the playing field. It's great to have ideals, just as long as they are not fairy tales. you have never lived in the small government utopia you dream of. You ignore that as long as big business exist you need bigger government. A lot to unpackage for a response...but a few general points: - I don't view Reagan as infallible. He (and most other conservatives) have been largely ineffective at shrinking the bureaucracy. The only guy with some success at it? He currently resides in the Oval Office. We still have a long way to go, though, to make as big of an impact as I'd like. - I freely admit that I've never lived in the small government utopia that I dream of. Wish I did! :) Hah - You're right that it's the government's job to uphold laws. It's just that a lot of those laws probably shouldn't exist. Bottom line: my view on college sports comes through the lens of someone who roots for the underdog. Frankly, I could care less about the "big boys" and athletes that will go on to make millions. That's not the reason I'm a fan of college sports. What's the point of cutting "beauracracy" if doing so also leads to ballooning government spending? The defecit is growing substantially. I mean, what's the point of a federal hiring freeze and insisting on a reduction in civil servants if that comes with a higher deficit, more spending and more big government. Tariffs are big government. Repealing net neutrality is big government. Going after the tech companies is big government. Increasing DHS resources is big government. Sending troops to the border as a political stunt is big government. The Space Force is going to add huge costs and there's no feasible way to as new military branch without adding beauracracy. He increased military spending by 40 billion, even before the space Force thing. What's he doing that you think accomplishes your desire for small government? Sure, there are fewer people. But the cost is higher, and theyre governing against individual liberties. Just genuinely curious how you see otherwise. Back to Top giacomo General User Member Since: 11/20/2007 Post Count: 2,634 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 11/2/2018 7:29:26 PM  Amen, brother man dude. Back to Top catfan28 General User Member Since: 6/11/2011 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 1,503 Status: Offline     RE: OT: Adidas Federal Trial    Posted: 11/2/2018 11:25:49 PM  Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: What's the point of cutting "beauracracy" if doing so also leads to ballooning government spending? The defecit is growing substantially. I mean, what's the point of a federal hiring freeze and insisting on a reduction in civil servants if that comes with a higher deficit, more spending and more big government. Tariffs are big government. Repealing net neutrality is big government. Going after the tech companies is big government. Increasing DHS resources is big government. Sending troops to the border as a political stunt is big government. The Space Force is going to add huge costs and there's no feasible way to as new military branch without adding beauracracy. He increased military spending by 40 billion, even before the space Force thing. What's he doing that you think accomplishes your desire for small government? Sure, there are fewer people. But the cost is higher, and theyre governing against individual liberties. Just genuinely curious how you see otherwise. You & I both know that the primary driver of the deficit is entitlement programs. Last I read, those are around 60% of the entire budget. So unless someone makes a tough decision (which, let's be honest, neither side will do), all future Presidents will have gigantic deficits. What do I like? Less people, less regulations and cutting of existing regulations. All of those things make a difference for everyday people and small businesses. Net neutrality was big government. Repealing it is taking the government out of the process, which I see as a good thing. The Space Force already exists as part of the Air Force. He's literally just doing a re-branding as a new branch. It's nothing more than a PR stunt IMO, so don't see that impacting the deficit much. Do I wish we'd do more? Sure. But no other President has even made an effort. Wish we would wholesale start eliminating departments - like Energy, Education, Commerce and the EPA for starters. Back to Top Showing Replies:   51 - 75  of 78 Posts Jump to Page:   < Previous    1 | 2 | 3 | 4    Next > View Other 'Ohio Basketball' Topics                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               WHO'S ONLINE There are 103 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com 102 Guests 1 Registered User:   Doc Bobcat There are no other users looking at this page.

Copyright ©2024 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties