Howard Roark

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

28 Excellent

About Howard Roark

  • Rank
    AU Fan
  1. FBI and Mueller Team Losing Credibility

    He is part of an IG investigation of the FBI and DOJ. I have a feeling his dismissal is the result of actions much bigger than anti-Trump text.
  2. More Versatility in Auburn's Gameplan Next Year?

    It would be nice if we attacked the middle of the field more. The play action pulls up the LBs, so we should run more crossing patterns, rubs, slants etc. We did do more of this against spuat. It would be nice to see some bunch formations to help open up the WRs as well. The play action should open up more patterns than we currently see. I am hoping that Stidham has earned their confidence to open up the passing game even more next year.
  3. I only ignore trolls. Disagreement is not a problem.
  4. Won't that disincentivize investment? It would also push capital accumulation off shore. There are serious consequences to all of these policies. Wouldn't you be better served by a consumption tax on non necessities?
  5. See my inline comments above.
  6. Gosh how can respond to such a well reasoned argument? How about ... I know you are but what am I? Or ... I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you. Are your arguments so shallow all you are left with after a few brief exchanges is elementary school level name calling?
  7. Your theory is the middle class is disappearing because the "1%" is hording cash? First there is not a fixed pool of money that we are all trying to get, the economy actually grows. The piece of pie economic view is ridiculous. Second where did the manufacturing jobs go? Well unions, lawsuits, and heavy handed regulations chased them overseas. Those are all major tenants of the Democrat's platform. Finally the government has deincentivized work to the point almost 50% don't even have an income tax liability. Fleecing the rich is not going to fix any of that. If you don't care, why are you continuing to engage on the subject?
  8. You joined the conversation on your own. Sorry you don't like being asked to present well thought out arguments. The real problem I have is people throwing out meaningless statements about income disparity and wealthiest 1%, etc. Income redistribution is incredibly bad and dangerous. When done without any real defined goal it can be catastrophic. History has numerous lessons. Read those books for a change.
  9. Not necessarily. The investor class in this country is larger than it ever has been. The wealthiest people in this country are almost exclusively people who earned the money. Both of those measures indicate to me that the access to wealth is not determined at birth, and is largely a product of your individual efforts. As long as that does not change, the problem is not as serious as portrayed. The fact government controls so much control over commerce opens it up to manipulation by those controlling wealth does concern me. When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators. - P. J. O'Rourke Will you now answer my questions?
  10. OK I'll change my question, I agree, "fair" is highly subjective, but I did not introduce it as an economic objective DKW did. I find it a very dangerous word, but I also find "healthy" and "optimum" subjective as well. The only way this works is to define a desired state and then discuss how to achieve it. The problem is the desired state is always described in vague or subjective terms. That is not actionable. My point to you was the prescriptions you recommended are already in place, but apparently they are not working as well as some would like. Without a predetermined acceptable state, the solutions will not ever really fix anything because the bar will keep moving. Like you said, there will never be income equality, so what is an acceptable level inequality? Without defining that, you are not proposing a solution, you are just suggesting we punish "rich" people economically because it makes you feel better.
  11. The point is you want progressive tax to "resolve" income inequality, we have a pretty drastic progressive tax now and still you see a problem. I just wonder how much more do you think would need to be taken from the "top 1%" until income distribution is "fair"?
  12. We have both already. I assume you would want a different rate than currently used, what would it be? Here is the current breakdown of who pays taxes: The top 1 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted annual gross income of $480,930 or higher, pay about 39 percent of federal income taxes. That means about 892,000 Americans pay 39 percent of all federal taxes. The top 10 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income over $138,031, pay about 70.6 percent of federal income taxes. About 1.7 million Americans, less than 1 percent of our population, pay 70.6 percent of federal income taxes. The bottom 50 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income of $39,275 or less, pay 2.83 percent of federal income taxes. Thirty-seven million tax filers have no tax obligation at all. The Tax Policy Center estimates that 45.5 percent of households will not pay federal income tax this year.
  13. SECCG thoughts on what to expect

    Those were forced mistakes. Fromm did not miss wide open receivers, his o-line could not block long enough for him to make a play. Once things started to go sideways and they figured out Auburn was whipping them, they lost their composure. Why do you think UGA players were arguing on the sidelines? Not sure why normally competent people are running with this theory that Auburn is the beneficiary of 2 opponents merely playing their worst game of the season. All this hype is doing is setting them up for another big letdown. I am not adverse to that at all.
  14. Sorry I am not a troll. I don't post anything I don't believe. I abandoned another Auburn site after many years primarily because of the football forum. This one is much better. The thing you fail to understand (that our Founding Fathers understood so well) is that humans are easily corruptible especially those who seek public office. We are not governed by angels. The government (i.e. politicians) is actually the primary source of the problems you want it to correct. If any conglomerate has advantages, it is because they "purchased" them from the government. Please name me one of the companies or individuals who is not intimately involved with the government. The government's role should be to ensure free and open markets. It should block monopolistic behaviors. It should guarantee execution of contracts and prosecute fraud / other criminal behaviors. The idea a bunch of politicians will "fairly" redistribute wealth has no precedence in human history. Limited government is as timeless as human corruption. I would be happy to discuss the specific proposals you think would "fairly" redistribute the wealth accumulated by the "1%", if you would just list them. I would love to hear what you think the tax rate would should be and I would really like to hear how you or anyone proposes to make this happen on a worldwide scale. I have never engaged in a debate about this topic where these questions were answered or even explained how it would be different this time unlike all the other times it has been tried.
  15. Maybe I have not been on this site long enough, but I don't really follow your post. Does it mean you don't answer questions? Are you just not able or do you just feel above answering? Oops there I go again asking questions, my bad. I thought the point of this forum was political discussion, I guess I misunderstood. Hopefully I did not trigger you.