More Cuts coming to Akron ...

[GP1]

If Akron cuts half of the professors in the Polymer Engineering School, they can still maintain the core research that drives funding and churn out a decent number of PhDs. 

 

For easy math, let's round up to 20 professors. Because of their own research and teaching responsibilities, a single professor can sit on a PhD committee for at most 4 candidates. That's 80 candidates. If the field is narrowed down to 40 in the core fields, it's still a pretty good number. 

 

It is true this will make the ABJ, which almost nobody reads. It is also true it will be reported on the local TV news which almost nobody watches. Seems like it would be easy enough to explain to the public with little effort.

[ZipCat]

On 11/4/2024 at 8:03 PM, ClevelandZip said:

That’s fair. I’m sure many programs can just be a matter of how much effort is put into learning the material, and some may be a waste of time. But my point is if other colleges are picking up easy revenue from this, why not Akron? I believe Akron launched an online MBA recently, but should have 10 years ago and gotten ahead of the curve to differentiate themselves. Now they’re playing catch-up with established “brands.”

 

Well there's the whole problem where Akron cut a majority of it's Master's programs.

 

I hold a master's in chemistry from Ohio University because Akron was dumping most of its programs. Akron has chem, but not the supporting staff or courses for what I needed/wanted.

 

It takes staff to make a decent program. You can't just cut them, scatter them to the wind and then expect to make decent master's programs. So, like GP1, unless you actually hire (and fairly compensate) the people running master's programs, it absolutely is just a shameless money grab.

[egregiousbob]

Cut first, think second. Seems to be the norm in our nation right now. Wait until Social Security and tax refund checks don't show up in citizen's bank accounts on time. Then the impact of these decisions will begin to hit home.

[Hilltopper]

The pathway we are on as a nation is not sustainable. The interest payments on our national debt is destroying our economy. The reckless spending of the last 10 years cannot continue. The past administrations strategy of essentially just printing more money is about to have the bill come due. Trillions of dollars in low interest rate short term debt will need to be refinanced soon at double the rate. The IRS has 45,000 employees. The few new hires that DOGE is trimming are not going to delay tax returns unless the remaining employees decide to take some type of work action to slow things down.

[UAZipster0305]

Wow, this topic got hijacked in a hurry!

 

I don't come to ZNO to read personal political commentary, and I don't think anyone else does either. I come to escape all of that.

 

Everyone here is united in their love and enjoyment of the Zips, so let's keep it on topic.

Edited February 23 by UAZipster0305

[GP1]

On 2/22/2025 at 4:08 PM, Hilltopper said:

The pathway we are on as a nation is not sustainable. The interest payments on our national debt is destroying our economy. The reckless spending of the last 10 years cannot continue. The past administrations strategy of essentially just printing more money is about to have the bill come due. Trillions of dollars in low interest rate short term debt will need to be refinanced soon at double the rate. The IRS has 45,000 employees. The few new hires that DOGE is trimming are not going to delay tax returns unless the remaining employees decide to take some type of work action to slow things down.

Here is some perspective on the national debt. 

 

If we paid the $34 trillion national debt off $1.00 per second without interest accumulated, it would take over 1.1 million years to pay it off. 1.1 million years ago, Homo Erectus was the dominant humanoid on Earth. Someone needs to snap the country out of this insanity or something will. 

[ZippyRulz]

Cuts coming to Dayton:

 

Edited March 5 by ZippyRulz

[Hilltopper]

7 hours ago, ZippyRulz said:

Cuts coming to Dayton:

 

You can't change demographics. Fewer students means less demand. Change or die.

[GP1]

On 3/5/2025 at 3:31 PM, ZippyRulz said:

Cuts coming to Dayton:

 

Dayton is a solid private school, but the pricetag is pretty steep for just solid. Ohio public universities offer very good value for the cost. Kids should be looking at the Ohio public university more than they are. It's a great value. I'd stack UofA up against Dayton any day of the week. I understand demographic, etc. but it seems easy enough to exploit. 

[ZipsBBjunkie]

 

[ZipsBBjunkie]

Zips Barstool posted the entire letter

https://x.com/zipsbarstool/status/1902401030119154066?s=46

[ZipCat]

On 2/22/2025 at 9:54 AM, egregiousbob said:

 

 

On 2/22/2025 at 4:08 PM, Hilltopper said:

The reckless spending of the last 10 years cannot continue. 

 

What actually caused the National Debt that we now pay $800-billion in interest on? What actually caused the $1 Trillion deficit we are currently experiencing?

 

1. The Bush-era Taxcuts
2. Two unfunded wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) 
3. Continually increasing military budgets to the level of absurdity over the past 20-years (and no, Military aid to Ukraine doesn't actually count here because most of that was surplus stockpile that was going to cost us $ to decommission anyways). 
4. Trump (2016) Taxcuts.

 

The four things are the major contributors to both the Debt AND deficit. And no, it goes much further back than the past 10-years. It goes back to that 2000s era of Taxcuts that turned Bill Clinton's surpluses into deficits. And if you want to play the conspiracy theory game, it's all by design of ONE political party so they could justify cutting Social Security instead of doing the sensible thing, which everyone knew in the 1980s we should do to solve Social Security, which is eliminating the cap on taxable personal income.

 

I'm so sick and tired of people lying about this. It's not a mystery as to where this debt and deficit came from. It's from cutting taxes into oblivion, and running up the charge card on military spending. Period Fullstop. It wasn't spending on education, or food stamps, or national park funding, or NASA, or the EPA (etc...etc...etc). It was taxcuts and military spending.

 

Yes, we should have been able to spend stimulus money in a lifetime of a Pandemic to keep people in homes and to keep the economy from free falling into a depression. You know, basic crap governments are like supposed to do. But no, a segment of this country decided it was better to give free handouts to the wealthiest people in the country at the expense of the future.

Edited March 20 by ZipCat

[ZipCat]

On 2/23/2025 at 4:36 PM, GP1 said:

Here is some perspective on the national debt. 

 

If we paid the $34 trillion national debt off $1.00 per second without interest accumulated, it would take over 1.1 million years to pay it off. 1.1 million years ago, Homo Erectus was the dominant humanoid on Earth. Someone needs to snap the country out of this insanity or something will. 

 

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. 

Edited March 20 by ZipCat

[Blue & Gold]

https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/local/2025/03/19/kent-state-will-eliminate-several-majors-cut-administrative-positions/82550339007/?tbref=hp

[ZipsBBjunkie]

4 minutes ago, Blue & Gold said:

https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/local/2025/03/19/kent-state-will-eliminate-several-majors-cut-administrative-positions/82550339007/?tbref=hp

😂 guess we even compete for headlines related to budget cuts 

[Hilltopper]

3 hours ago, ZipCat said:

 

 

What actually caused the National Debt that we now pay $800-billion in interest on? What actually caused the $1 Trillion deficit we are currently experiencing?

 

1. The Bush-era Taxcuts
2. Two unfunded wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) 
3. Continually increasing military budgets to the level of absurdity over the past 20-years (and no, Military aid to Ukraine doesn't actually count here because most of that was surplus stockpile that was going to cost us $ to decommission anyways). 
4. Trump (2016) Taxcuts.

 

The four things are the major contributors to both the Debt AND deficit. And no, it goes much further back than the past 10-years. It goes back to that 2000s era of Taxcuts that turned Bill Clinton's surpluses into deficits. And if you want to play the conspiracy theory game, it's all by design of ONE political party so they could justify cutting Social Security instead of doing the sensible thing, which everyone knew in the 1980s we should do to solve Social Security, which is eliminating the cap on taxable personal income.

 

I'm so sick and tired of people lying about this. It's not a mystery as to where this debt and deficit came from. It's from cutting taxes into oblivion, and running up the charge card on military spending. Period Fullstop. It wasn't spending on education, or food stamps, or national park funding, or NASA, or the EPA (etc...etc...etc). It was taxcuts and military spending.

 

Yes, we should have been able to spend stimulus money in a lifetime of a Pandemic to keep people in homes and to keep the economy from free falling into a depression. You know, basic crap governments are like supposed to do. But no, a segment of this country decided it was better to give free handouts to the wealthiest people in the country at the expense of the future.

Terrible letting people get to keep their money when we all know the government would do a much better job spending it for them!  I really appreciate these sarcastic posts of yours!

[GP1]

6 hours ago, ZipCat said:

 

 

What actually caused the National Debt that we now pay $800-billion in interest on? What actually caused the $1 Trillion deficit we are currently experiencing?

 

1. The Bush-era Taxcuts
2. Two unfunded wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) 
3. Continually increasing military budgets to the level of absurdity over the past 20-years (and no, Military aid to Ukraine doesn't actually count here because most of that was surplus stockpile that was going to cost us $ to decommission anyways). 
4. Trump (2016) Taxcuts.

 

The four things are the major contributors to both the Debt AND deficit. And no, it goes much further back than the past 10-years. It goes back to that 2000s era of Taxcuts that turned Bill Clinton's surpluses into deficits. And if you want to play the conspiracy theory game, it's all by design of ONE political party so they could justify cutting Social Security instead of doing the sensible thing, which everyone knew in the 1980s we should do to solve Social Security, which is eliminating the cap on taxable personal income.

 

I'm so sick and tired of people lying about this. It's not a mystery as to where this debt and deficit came from. It's from cutting taxes into oblivion, and running up the charge card on military spending. Period Fullstop. It wasn't spending on education, or food stamps, or national park funding, or NASA, or the EPA (etc...etc...etc). It was taxcuts and military spending.

 

Yes, we should have been able to spend stimulus money in a lifetime of a Pandemic to keep people in homes and to keep the economy from free falling into a depression. You know, basic crap governments are like supposed to do. But no, a segment of this country decided it was better to give free handouts to the wealthiest people in the country at the expense of the future.

It's the spending. It's always the spending. 

 

 

[ZipCat]

7 hours ago, GP1 said:

It's the spending. It's always the spending. 

 

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.

[ZipCat]

10 hours ago, Hilltopper said:

Terrible letting people get to keep their money when we all know the government would do a much better job spending it for them!  I really appreciate these sarcastic posts of yours!

 

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.

Edited March 21 by ZipCat

[GP1]

3 hours ago, ZipCat said:

 

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.

Do some more research into the tax code during that period. Nobody paid 90%. 

[GP1]

3 hours ago, ZipCat said:

 

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.

Then we agree. Spending is spending whether on wars or soup kitchens. It's always about the spending. 

 

Two very true things happened in the 1980s, and I know this because I was alive and can remember the 1980s. God, it was a great decade. First true thing, the tax cuts caused a massive increase in tax revenues because people had extra money to spend and the economy boomed. Second true thing is the government spent all of the windfall and billions more like drunken sailors on defense spending. See, the problem was the spending. It's always the spending. 

[ZipCat]

39 minutes ago, GP1 said:

Then we agree. Spending is spending whether on wars or soup kitchens. It's always about the spending. 

 

Two very true things happened in the 1980s, and I know this because I was alive and can remember the 1980s. God, it was a great decade. First true thing, the tax cuts caused a massive increase in tax revenues because people had extra money to spend and the economy boomed. Second true thing is the government spent all of the windfall and billions more like drunken sailors on defense spending. See, the problem was the spending. It's always the spending. 

 

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.

 

Quote

the tax cuts caused a massive increase in tax revenues

 

An often spouted lie, that's verifiably false. Reagan left office with deficit.

 

 

[ZipCat]

3 hours ago, GP1 said:

Do some more research into the tax code during that period. Nobody paid 90%. 

 

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.  

Edited March 21 by ZipCat

[GP1]

4 hours ago, ZipCat said:

 

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.

 

 

From 1980 to 1990 Federal tax revenue increased from $518 billion to $1.0 trillion. 

[GP1]

5 hours ago, ZipCat said:

 

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.

The highest tax rate in the 1950s only applied to income over $200,000. Today, $200k = $2.4 million. 

 

They didn't invest in workers to keep their taxes down. They created paper losses on real estate and country club memberships. A summer home was a great way to keep your taxes down. There were many more ways to hide income in the 50s that didn't exactly find their way to the middle class. 

 

Does anyone really think people in the 1950s making $200,000 per year and only took home $18,000?