Green2012

I can agree with you on cutting the earmarks. It was indeed reckless and clearly loaded with special interest. I was under the impression that Obama voted no to raising the debt limit "because America deserves better leadership" or something to that effect. Can you provide us with some programs sponsored by Democrats that are proposed to be cut and Republican programs that are instead proposed to receive funding.

The only thing I completely disagree with is the hypocrisy showing from both sides. Obama voted no during bush years on budget ceiling and people like Cantor approved the ceiling without demanding any spending cuts at a time when spending was out of control. Now Cantor acts like he is dying by having to vote yes to raise the debt ceiling. I think some compromise has to occur by both sides. Republican cuts need to be made but income taxes do not need to be raised in exchange for the cuts. I would however compromise with Democrats and support closing some tax loopholes or lowering certain tax deductions in exchange for the drastic cuts that need to be made.

hahaha yessssss....

Take from it what you will but here's a writeup on Wikipedia. Can reducing income tax rates increase government revenue? In theory, the government collects no revenue at either zero or 100% tax rates. So there is some intermediate point at which government revenue is maximized. Lowering tax rates from 100% to this hypothetical rate that maximizes revenue would theoretically raise revenue, while continuing to lower tax rates below this rate would lower revenues. This concept underlies the Laffer Curve, an element of supply-side economics. Since the 1970s, some "supply side" economists have contended that lowering marginal tax rates could stimulate economic growth to such a degree that tax revenues could rise, other factors being held constant. However, economic models and econometric analysis have found weak support for the "supply side" theory. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) summarized a variety of studies done by economists across the political spectrum that indicated tax cuts do not pay for themselves and increase deficits.[89] Studies by the CBO and the U.S. Treasury also indicated that tax cuts do not pay for themselves.[90][91][92][93] In 2003, 450 economists, including ten Nobel Prize laureate, signed the Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts, sent to President Bush stating that "these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook... will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research... [and] generate further inequalities in after-tax income."[94] Economist Paul Krugman wrote in 2007: "Supply side doctrine, which claimed without evidence that tax cuts would pay for themselves, never got any traction in the world of professional economic research, even among conservatives."[95] Economist Nouriel Roubini wrote in October 2010 that the Republican Party was "trapped in a belief in voodoo economics, the economic equivalent of creationism" while the Democratic administration was unwilling to improve the tax system via a carbon tax or value-added tax.[96] Warren Buffett wrote in 2003: "When you listen to tax-cut rhetoric, remember that giving one class of taxpayer a 'break' requires -- now or down the line -- that an equivalent burden be imposed on other parties. In other words, if I get a break, someone else pays. Government can't deliver a free lunch to the country as a whole."[97] Former Comptroller General of the United States David Walker stated during January 2009: "You can't have guns, butter and tax cuts. The numbers just don't add up."[98] Income tax revenues generally rose to new peaks in nominal dollar terms each year from 1970 to 2000 as the economy grew, with the exception of 1983, following the recession of 1981-1982. However, after peaking in 2000, income tax revenues did not regain this peak again until 2006. After a plateau in 2007 and 2008, revenues fell markedly in 2009 and 2010 due to a financial crisis and recession. Income tax revenues in 2010 remained below their 2000 peak. Relative to GDP, income tax revenues declined during most of the 1980's (from 9.0% GDP in 1980 to 8.3% GDP in 1989), rose during most of the 1990's (from 8.1% GDP in 1990 to 9.6% GDP in 1999) then declined in the 2000's (from 10.2% GDP in 2000 to 6.5% GDP in 2009).[99] The extent to which economic activity and tax policy interact to drive these trends is debated by experts. While marginal income tax rates were lowered in the early 1980's, dollar revenue increased throughout the period, although revenue relative to GDP declined. Marginal tax rates were raised during the 1990's, and both revenue dollars and revenue relative to GDP increased. Marginal rates were lowered again in the early 2000's, and both revenue and revenue relative to GDP generally declined.

Yes I absolutely agree. Most people that want to "raise taxes on the rich" don't really understand what the rich are already paying. But I think its important to realize that washington has to work together to get anything done and right now they are far from doing that. Surprisingly the Democrats seem to support entitlement and welfare/medicaid cuts in return for closing some tax loopholes. Republicans are playing hardball and saying no to anything related to the word tax. We got people like Cantor putting on this show like his heart is breaking raising the debt ceiling yet he raised it under bush every time it was called to vote. And that was accompanied with ZERO spending cuts. My point is this. Reagan dropped taxes and the economy took off. He also closed tax loopholes and raised taxes in other areas. Why can't they do that now? They once spoke of 4 trillion over 10 years and now its down to 1.5 trillion simply because the republicans wont compromise. I just don't like our current strategy. Its more about elections than doing what's needed.

Well that's not what you said or implied. You said the person would pay 35% on all their income. Trying to cover up an absolute fail just makes it that much worse... And you even tried to be condescending. Ouch... I'm with KRAM and others. Taxes suck and they only hurt the economy. Government needs to control spending not increase taxes. That would just further hurt the job market. Once the fed decides to do another stimulus we might as well start digging our grave a little deeper. Inflation will skyrocket and the fed will raise interest rates to battle it. Then the housing market will be screwed.

You can't just use the face recklessly like you just did. I will throw the first stone.

What. have. you. done... You just had to show the black shirt didn't you. No green? I'm escaping this thread while there's still time.

I didn't expect anyone to really take it all too seriously. But kudos hardass. You win the prize.

The fans are powered by the wind that blows through when the garage doors are open. The power generated by the indoor wind turbines turns on the lights. Near the lights are solar panels that power the mean green margarita machine on game days. This system saves us 30% on utilities. beware of decapitation.

Well some of this can be attributed to Clinton when he promoted more lax lending standards to meet Community Reinvestment Act goals. The repeal of the Glass Steagall Act didn't exactly help either as this created the "Too big to fail" banks we all became familiar with. Promoting low income/sub-prime mortgages to private banks in MBS's under Bush didn't help either. GSE's abusing their implicit guarantee to not fail from Congress was also no bueno. I mean lets face it. Not everyone has the means to be a homeowner and that shouldn't be forced upon people that should remain renters for life. The fed lowering interest rates to 1% after the dot com bubble clearly helped formulate this artificial housing boom that couldn't be sustained forever. The answer to your question is never. As the WAC continues down its path to desperately add new subprime additions (that have no business being in FBS or homeowners for that matter) to its failing family you can expect to see people continue to jump ship just like our own US banks were betting against America before the housing bust. After that happens the new subprime additions that received adjustable rate mortgages will default on their loans as it was clear all along that they were overvalued and never AAA quality. This will in turn require them to return to the Southland and into a deep recession. I imagine T.state or UTA's president (or whoever is now involved in this diluted conference) will gather its university and convince they must spend more to fix the problem and to get back to their ever short glory days in the WAC. Recent history shows this won't work and they'll end up worse than where they were most likely causing them to play D3 football for many years.

Couldn't agree more. He's not trying to play the blame game he is just openly stating how things are going to be different. It would be different if he came off as blaming Dodge or somehow Dickey lol for an inherited mess. If only our politicians could take notice on how to seek solutions rather than the blame game.... Oh yeah. GMG!

Just for clarification, Feldt will not be able to start in 2011 and are referring to next year as 2012 correct?

I don't see 3-9. Last year we barely lost multiple games with our entire team banged up. Look for Mac to close these games out with a W in 2011! I liked TFLF's prediction. Plus or minus one win due to our inexperience on some parts of the o and d.

I don't get it either. If anything it makes our image worse by having posters try and downplay BSU's success because of their stadium. I would much rather win than have a nicer stadium but the poster on the thread is making it seem like a nicer stadium is more important. poor argument

First off, half of the posters on that thread are only using TCU and BSU's success to back their arguments. Who really gives a crap about SDSU and others? Everything changes with winning. A bowl season this year and suddenly people think our endzone is unique instead of jetson like. Good thing is, it can't really get worse and with Mac in the driver's seat I know we are going to go only up and it starts THIS season. Also, Man vs. Food inspired me to make Jucy Lucys and I'm currently in the experimental stage for the upcoming season. A few more 2 a days and I will have perfected my craft.

I thought sweeping was for real grass. sweeping for turf is for the rubber pellets. I believe the shades of green are just different for a two tone turf field. No sweeping needed.

Yeah I suppose I'll trust the people that did the calculations too and presented their findings to the committee. Once presented he was removed from the committee because his findings did not make the committee feel rosy inside about their windmills anymore. The addition of the turbines is to bring us closer to LEED Platinum. Without the turbines it would be near impossible since renewable energy sources translate into mega points on the LEED scale.

I could care less. If the money was already going to be wasted on wind turbines that don't work then I guess I would rather them at UNT for their uniqueness than at some other school. Either way its 2 million wasted like you said.

What do I not "get?" I simply pointed out that I don't see the turbines even working. Its free money so I could really care less. Just stating that they must of did a good job on their grant paperwork because the application they are being used for does not add up.

I said it on another thread. The area where the turbines will be installed is too low to generate any substantial electricity anyway. I will not be surprised if power is actually given to the turbines to make them appear to be working. It's too low and not enough wind. Do the calculations for turbines. Do it.

The area where the turbines will be installed is too low to generate any substantial electricity anyway. I will not be surprised if power is actually given to the turbines to make them appear to be working. It's too low and not enough wind. Do the calculations for turbines. Do it.

I like it. I think FIU is the most important game of the season with indiana right behind. If we were to start off the season 0-3 this could kill the team morale. Indiana to me is the second most important game. I really hope we pull it out against houston. If we play like we did against Kstate its very possible. But, if we do lose to houston we must beat indiana at home to keep the fans. Just my 2 cents!

yes

62% of kids like turtles.