ZipCat

And why should it? What has "loyalty" done for players? The idea that people owe us something is ridiculous. It's the same argument that you should be loyal to a company that doesn't pay you more or recognize your hard work. At the end of the day, you got to look out for yourself. Why would anyone stay at The University of Akron, when a larger opportunity presents itself? CEOs, CFOs, University Presidents, Coaches, NCAA executives always take advantage of larger opportunities that present themselves, why wouldn't the players (workers)? It's funny how "Loyalty" is always a one-sided benefit proposition isn't it?

They're probably infinitely better quality than the Influxer ones right? Which you pay $110 for.

Uh huh, sure they do. I'm sure they also use the magical S-Curve for seed placement on the brackets for where the teams play too right? Like Duke playing in Raleigh.

So Akron should be over McNeese State right? "Net Ranking" is meaningless.

I mean the NCAA is fundamentally rigged. Why do the Akron Zips perpetually get a 13/14 seed? You're telling me the might McNeese State from the mighty Southland Conference is somehow more deserving of a higher seed than the Akron Zips from the Mid American Conference? Drake gets an 11 seed while the Akron zips who swept their own conference gets a 13/14 seed? It's a joke. If the Zips could get matched up against the 5th seed, I think they could pull the upset. Arizona was a good shot, I must admit, but we had uncharacteristically low % shooting and Arizona had uncharacteristically high % shooting.

Correct. The "drops" in the bucket are individual line items in the federal budget. The flood is the cutting of the dam year-on-year. It's the cutting of the dam that causes the flood, not the drops in the bucket. You're absolutely right about that, you just don't have a correct understanding of the analogy.

At least Arizona's aren't falling too...

Sure, but they lack the proper context that you lost revenue long term, and that it's under what you would have had if you hadn't changed it, thus making the claim "tax revenue increased" isn't true. Stop saying this. If you have a $500 car note, and you go from working at Goldman Sachs to working at McDonalds and now you cannot pay the $500 car note, it's not the spending that's the problem...you have a revenue problem. But where I will agree with you is this: MILITARY SPENDING you are absolutely correct. That is part of the problem. But to sit there and say that Cutting Taxes didn't creat the $30-trillion debt is just a blatant lie. Yes it did. Regan, Bush and Trump didn't bother to cut spending to the military to pay for the tax cuts, they both raised military spending and cut taxes and the go "gee, guess we're spending too much on national parks!". It's a lie. You know it. I know it. Stop saying it. Stop being intellectually dishonest and at least admit that IT WAS NOT the EPA, Department of Education, USAID, Aid to Ukraine that created the National Debt. If you cannot admit that, you just are not an honest person.

Finish reading the article you googled: Yeah the net impact was negative revenues because of the 1981 Reagan Tax-cut, and they raised taxes 3-times after it was passed because it was so disastrous. Thus making the claim, a complete and utter lie. Because of course it is...it defies all mathematical sense. You don't cut your income working at Goldman Sachs by working at McDonalds and think you're magically going to make more money. The concept is beyond futilely stupid; and yet a single generation of men has fallen for it THREE TIMES. When are you going to learn? Don't rely on the AI from google, it does a terrible job of accurately finding information.

Indeed. Because it stayed invested in the economy, in companies, and in workers instead of flowing to the wealthy. Because if you're going to pay 90%, you don't take it home as pay then. You keep it in the company, and pay your workers more. This isn't rocket science. Ironically THIS is what actually generates more tax revenue. Because if you're paying workers more money, that's all taxed as income for everything from social security to FIT. So preventing the wealthy from being able to be paid exorbitant amounts, and rewarding the actual boot-on-the-grounds workers more, is what actually generates more tax revenue.

As someone born in the 80s but without the rose colored glasses of nostalgia, it was a terrible decade of decadence and greed that set fort the destruction of the American Middle-Class and sensible governance through cowboy diplomacy. An often spouted lie, that's verifiably false. Reagan left office with deficit.

Except governments do have a more effective ability to spend money for effectively because they have the entire power and influence of a nation backing it with a quantity-to-scale and negotiating power unmatched by one person or entity in the private sector. The most economic expansion in this country took place during a time when the marginal taxrate for every dollar over $400,000 (which would be $5-million today) was 90%. It was the most expansive time in this country's economic history. Built the middle-class. Do better.

Except that I just laid out for you how it verifiably isn't. We can walk through the calculations if you want. But it's already been done. By a lot of modern non-Reagan economists. Yeah, the Bush Era Tax-Cuts, and two unfunded wars and the interest servicing both are responsible for the National Debt. Stop living in outdated red team vs blue team philosophy and actually do the math. No surprise you would post a video from Ronald Reagan advisor Milton Friedman though. It's ironically the revitalization of his monetary philosophy in the 2000s under George W. Bush that created this mess.

And it's actually pretty easy to solve the National Debt. You're going to have to raise taxes to do it, and you're going to have to cut Military spending. All the stuff the current administration is doing is laughable, performative, and not actually the cause of both the National Debt, nor the Deficit. Those are facts. And practically anyone saying otherwise hasn't done the math of the impact of the Bush-Era taxcuts, two unfunded wars, the constantly absurdly increased military budgets over the past 20-years, and the Trump (2016) Taxcuts. That, and the interest serving the deficits created by all of that, is about 70% of the National Debt. But I'm sure you'll have some stupid statistic to pettyfog the issue right? Fixing these issues...like actually fixing them...requires telling the truth. And unfortunately we live in a fact free world in 2025, and it won't get any better with the current war on education and the propaganda filled algorithms.