Downtown living
Having read about downtown residents vs. night-life partiers, I would like to chime in with my opinion (briefly) and a few humble suggestions.
I have been a homeowner for several years in the University Parkway/Wake Forest University area. For years, we residents had this problem: students briefly renting houses in this area, then partying all the time, with hordes of "customers" visiting, parking in residents' yards, picking up beer cans and other things, etc. This problem has abated in the last few years, at least on my street, because of increased dorm areas on campus and heightened security.
Maybe residential areas and businesses that rent their clubs to customers who will party, dance, drink and then go home elsewhere just won't work, and never really has.
Maybe our illustrious mayor and city council should have thought of this before the big renovation of downtown Winston-Salem. Who is to blame, the planners of this great revitalization, the residents or the customers who enjoy the nightlife?
My suggestions:
Sunday through Thursday nights, curb outside partying to 11 p.m. Inside, with doors closed, stay open as long as clubs want.
Friday and Saturday nights, allow outside partying until 2 a.m., with a little more law enforcement on the more "lively and loud" groups.
The outdoors venue will be temporarily moot in a few months anyway, because of cold weather coming, and our city council not voting before November, which is a good way to postpone the issue, huh?
PATRICIA B. STOCKMEISTER
Winston-Salem
Policies and consequences
The September jobs report was welcome: 103,000 new jobs. That's good news. The bad news: unemployment was at 9.1 percent, and about 6.2 million workers have been unemployed more than six months. We're producing too few jobs for recovery, about 72,000 a month. That's roughly half enough to cut the jobless rate.
Hardest hit have been minority workers. The jobless rate for blacks is 16 percent, Hispanics 11.3 percent and teens 24.6 percent. Some have suffered acutely. Some observers consider the recent unrest, street protests and "Occupy Wall Street" rallies to be one consequence.
By contrast, the biggest one-month jobs gain in American history was at this point in Reagan's presidency — September 1983, after another deep recession. After the 1981-82 downturn, employers added 1.1 million workers to their payrolls. The seven-year expansion created some 17 million new jobs.
The difference isn't the size of the recessions, but the policies pursued to restore growth. In the Reagan expansion, spending, regulation and tax rates were cut. Government size was reduced. By contrast, we've had a spending and regulatory boom, a general anti-business political climate and a threat of higher tax rates. The policies were quite different, and policies have consequences.
What's the point? Who's responsible? Every citizen. We should support and elect a president and Congress known to support an industrial growth policy, including reduced spending, less restrictive regulation and a smaller federal government. Do that in every election, and especially the next one. Vote.
JAMES LASSING
Winston-Salem
Friedman fan
This is to express my appreciation for your publishing columns written by Thomas Friedman and especially the column appearing Oct. 6, "No Christie, no bargain."
All my life I have been a constant reader until my vision became impaired. I am now 88 years old, and I found Friedman's book "Hot, Flat and Crowded" perhaps the most exciting book I have ever read and more interesting than any fiction I can imagine.
I tell members of my family that if they see a column or book written by Friedman, to read it carefully and consider it thoughtfully. One can tell by references and documentation that he has carefully witnessed or researched significant events and experimental findings throughout the globe and knows whereof he speaks.
I am shocked at the cool indifference of intelligent acquaintances who tell me they get their news from television and show no interest or concern about the downward trend in our country.
FRANK GREER
Lexington
Having read about downtown residents vs. night-life partiers, I would like to chime in with my opinion (briefly) and a few humble suggestions.
I have been a homeowner for several years in the University Parkway/Wake Forest University area. For years, we residents had this problem: students briefly renting houses in this area, then partying all the time, with hordes of "customers" visiting, parking in residents' yards, picking up beer cans and other things, etc. This problem has abated in the last few years, at least on my street, because of increased dorm areas on campus and heightened security.
Maybe residential areas and businesses that rent their clubs to customers who will party, dance, drink and then go home elsewhere just won't work, and never really has.
Maybe our illustrious mayor and city council should have thought of this before the big renovation of downtown Winston-Salem. Who is to blame, the planners of this great revitalization, the residents or the customers who enjoy the nightlife?
My suggestions:
Sunday through Thursday nights, curb outside partying to 11 p.m. Inside, with doors closed, stay open as long as clubs want.
Friday and Saturday nights, allow outside partying until 2 a.m., with a little more law enforcement on the more "lively and loud" groups.
The outdoors venue will be temporarily moot in a few months anyway, because of cold weather coming, and our city council not voting before November, which is a good way to postpone the issue, huh?
PATRICIA B. STOCKMEISTER
Winston-Salem
Policies and consequences
The September jobs report was welcome: 103,000 new jobs. That's good news. The bad news: unemployment was at 9.1 percent, and about 6.2 million workers have been unemployed more than six months. We're producing too few jobs for recovery, about 72,000 a month. That's roughly half enough to cut the jobless rate.
Hardest hit have been minority workers. The jobless rate for blacks is 16 percent, Hispanics 11.3 percent and teens 24.6 percent. Some have suffered acutely. Some observers consider the recent unrest, street protests and "Occupy Wall Street" rallies to be one consequence.
By contrast, the biggest one-month jobs gain in American history was at this point in Reagan's presidency — September 1983, after another deep recession. After the 1981-82 downturn, employers added 1.1 million workers to their payrolls. The seven-year expansion created some 17 million new jobs.
The difference isn't the size of the recessions, but the policies pursued to restore growth. In the Reagan expansion, spending, regulation and tax rates were cut. Government size was reduced. By contrast, we've had a spending and regulatory boom, a general anti-business political climate and a threat of higher tax rates. The policies were quite different, and policies have consequences.
What's the point? Who's responsible? Every citizen. We should support and elect a president and Congress known to support an industrial growth policy, including reduced spending, less restrictive regulation and a smaller federal government. Do that in every election, and especially the next one. Vote.
JAMES LASSING
Winston-Salem
Friedman fan
This is to express my appreciation for your publishing columns written by Thomas Friedman and especially the column appearing Oct. 6, "No Christie, no bargain."
All my life I have been a constant reader until my vision became impaired. I am now 88 years old, and I found Friedman's book "Hot, Flat and Crowded" perhaps the most exciting book I have ever read and more interesting than any fiction I can imagine.
I tell members of my family that if they see a column or book written by Friedman, to read it carefully and consider it thoughtfully. One can tell by references and documentation that he has carefully witnessed or researched significant events and experimental findings throughout the globe and knows whereof he speaks.
I am shocked at the cool indifference of intelligent acquaintances who tell me they get their news from television and show no interest or concern about the downward trend in our country.
FRANK GREER
Lexington
Jobs created during US Presidential terms.
ReplyDeleteJobs at start Jobs at end Jobs created Avg. annual +
(1,000's) (millions).
Dwight Eisenhower R 1953–1957.
...
50,145 52,888 +2.7 +1.4%.
Dwight Eisenhower R 1957–1961.
52,888 53,683 +0.8 +0.4%.
Kennedy/Johnson D 1961–1965.
53,683 59,583 +5.9 +2.6%.
Lyndon Johnson D 1965–1969.
59,583 69,438 +9.9 +3.9%.
Richard Nixon R 1969–1973.
69,438 75,620 +6.2 +2.2%.
Nixon/Ford R 1973–1977.
75,620 80,692 +5.1 +1.7%.
Jimmy Carter D 1977–1981.
80,692 91,031 +10.3 +3.2%.
Ronald Reagan R 1981–1985.
91,031 96,353 +5.3 +1.5%.
Ronald Reagan R 1985–1989.
96,353 107,133 +10.8 +2.7%.
George H. W. Bush R 1989–1993.
107,133 109,725 +2.6 +0.6%.
Bill Clinton D 1993–1997.
109,725 121,231 +11.5 +2.6%.
Bill Clinton D 1997–2001.
121,231 132,469 +11.2 +2.3%.
George W. Bush R 2001–2005.
132,469 132,453 +0.0 -0.0%.
George W. Bush R 2005–2009.
132,453 133,563 +1.1 +0.2%.
Ranked in order % of increase by term.
1 Lyndon Johnson D 1965–1969.
2 Jimmy Carter D 1977–1981.
3 Ronald Reagan R 1985–1989.
4 Kennedy/Johnson D 1961–1965.
Bill Clinton D 1993–1997.
6 Bill Clinton D 1997–2001.
7 Richard Nixon R 1969–1973.
8 Ronald Reagan R 1981–1985.
9 Dwight Eisenhower R 1953–1957.
10 George H. W. Bush R 1989–1993.
11 Dwight Eisenhower R 1957–1961.
12 George W. Bush R 2005–2009.
13 George W. Bush R 2001–2005.
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan:
ReplyDeleteTwo bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said.
The bills didn't raise more revenue by hiking individual income tax rates though. Instead they did it largely through making it tougher to evade taxes, and through "base broadening" -- that is, reducing various federal tax breaks and closing tax loopholes.
For instance, more asset sales became taxable and tax-advantaged contributions and benefits under pension plans were further limited.
In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-second-bush-era-gun-smuggling-probe-202043091.html
ReplyDeleteAP Exclusive: Second Bush-era gun-smuggling probe.
Earlier this month, it was disclosed that the gun-walking tactic didn't begin under Obama, but was also used in 2006 under his predecessor, George W. Bush.
The group says Asheville is a testing ground for tactics it plans to deploy across North Carolina and other Southern states next year.
ReplyDelete_______________
How many bull dykes do you see in the attached picture?
http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2011/oct/15/wsmet11-couple-arrested-protesting-ban-on-same-sex-ar-1501932/
Bobby...the gun program under Bush had tracking devices on the guns, and the operation was done with the full knowledge and cooperation of the Mexican government.
ReplyDeleteHolder's program did not.
What is also particularly outrageous about Holder's program is all the while it was being conducted, Holder was trying to restrict LEGAL gun sales, saying guns were going to Mexico.
The last BIG difference in Holder's program and Bush's, a federal agent was shot and killed by one of the weapons Holder allowed to walk.
Holder was a loser under AG Janet Reno, and he's an even bigger loser under Obama. He needs to be indicted and thrown in jail.
And finally, Bobby, on your little list of presidential job creators, where's Obama? After all, most of us live in the here and now.
ReplyDeleteRiots are indeed an ugly thing. When zit gonna be our turn?
ReplyDeleteLte 2..."The difference isn't the size of the recessions, but the policies pursued to restore growth". True enough as far as it goes from a micro economic view. A macro economic view is needed to understand just what kind of recession we are now dealing with. This ain't the recession of the early 1980s or the mid 1970s. Not by a long shot, not even close.
ReplyDeleteBucky, Obama is still in his first term, so his results aren't in yet, DUH!!!
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing as the here and now, by the time you finish typing here, the now is gone. Besides I was responding to a post about Ronald Reagan. What can a president do when you have a bunch of people saying: "Nein, Nein, Nein" all the time.
He shouldn't have waited 3 years to introduce a job bill, that's one thing. And another is his stimulus bill should have never gone forward. It was poorly planned and executed. It was a waste of money.
ReplyDeleteThat's for starters. Only the nitwitted idiots of America voted for him, and the same class of people will do the same in 2012. You can't change a nitwit.
Rush.......you're an idiot. I call you an idiot every chance I get.
An idiot, dolt, or dullard is a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way.
The usual wrong info:
ReplyDelete1. Obama had been in office for 2 years, 8 months, not 3 years when he introduced the latest "jobs" bill.
2. The first jobs bill was introduced in 2009, just months after Obama took office. It has had a positive effect, although not as much as had been hoped.
3. Both attempts should have included more money, but were reduced by a backward looking Congress.
4. The above poster never fails to reveal his ignorance and lack of respect for truth...just the sort of backward looking moron who is holding the USA back.