Leaderboard

If you're a corporate marketing officer concerned over what's happening with Target, let me make something abundantly clear: you will never appease anti-LGBTQ extremists. They don't want *some* concessions. They want all of them. But there's a colder truth at play here. (thread) You think this is about a few items, and it's not. I promise you it's not. These are the same people who were livid that Pink Floyd used a rainbow in their 50th anniversary logo for "The Dark Side of the Moon" -- think about that for a second. They are not reasonable. When the Bud Light controversy erupted, the CEO of Anheuser-Busch made the unwise choice to cave entirely. He essentially apologized for the company recognizing that trans people exist and put the marketing execs on leave. It didn't work. They're still boycotting Bud Light. You need to understand something about these people: their objective is not really to gain any ground but to find an outlet for their rage at the world changing around them. They are starving for outrage all the time. They would rather be perpetually angry than be mollified. They are furious that anyone would ask them to learn about others because it de-centers their experience as the unassailable, unaccountable default. And deep down, they know we're never going away. The closet has been permanently opened. These people long for an America that always catered to those who look and act like them -- that is: white, heterosexual, traditional families. They use religion as a shield for their bigotry. They don't really care about what Christ taught; he's just a convenient vehicle. But that America is long gone, and it's never coming back. We are witnessing the very long and painful *last gasp* of that world. And boy, are they furious. Enraged. They've had to keep quiet about it for so long, but in the past several years, the quiet part became very loud. If they can't get that world back, what's the next best thing? Finding community in outrage. These people go out of their way to be angry. They'll share rightwing clickbait articles they know to be false because it gives them permission to be spitting hot mad. They are angry, and beneath that, they are very, very scared. They will claim they're not scared. But they're terrified. None of this works without fear. Fear of what? Uncertainty over their place in a changing society that increasingly doesn't defer to them. For rightwing grifters, Christmas is every day right now. All they have to do is feed these people things to get irate over and rake in the cash. Click and subscribe. Buy their book. Buy their bulls#!t wellness product. "I will make you angry." It's a paid service. Target thinks this is going away, and it's not. Target could pull all their Pride merchandise and sever every relationship they have with the LGBTQ community, but anything short of a corporate statement of "Yeah, we hate LGBTQ people, too" will not end this. Companies need to understand what's happening right now. You cannot mollify bigots whose primary desire is to be angry. You've already lost them. They're gone. If you cave to them, you're sacrificing the loyalty of other consumers for a sad, small group that will never like you. On the other hand: if Target and other companies refuse to play this bulls#!t game with enraged bigots, they will solidify their loyalty with reasonable adults and their families. Don't give in to these hateful people. You will never satisfy their craving for outrage. /thread

Just remember that if we raise the current tax rate on the wealthy, we will be on the slippery slope to every known era of when American was Great.

No, this entire argument from you shows how unserious you are in the conversation. By this train of thought, we can't do anything....because....why stop there? Who not take it to the ultimate extreme? Why have speed limits at 75 on the interstate? Why not make it 25? Why have blood alcohol levels at .08? Why not .00? Why have sales tax at 5.5%? Why not 55%? etc..etc...etc. Your argument just shows that you aren't actually serious about having a conversation on the subject.

I'm saying this is a typical slippery-slope argument unsupported by reality. In typical conservative fashion, any attempt to raise revenue is treated as a slippery-slope to communism - "if tax rates go from 35% to 39% on the highest earners, that's basically like taxing EVERYTHING" - and is also typical of how unserious Republicans are about the deficit. Withdrawing from a 401(k) is taxed accordingly, so I don't know what you're talking about. If somebody had a 401(k) robust enough that allowed them to withdraw 400k per year for the duration of their retirement, then yes that person is wealthy. If an individual retires with $1 million in their 401(k) and withdraws $50k per year, that person is only being taxed as if they're making $50k per year. Perhaps you're confusing proposed wealth taxes instead of income taxes?

He only got an invite because his receivers carried him there….

I thought I answered this, but I'll be more direct: households McDonald's $400k per year are in the 97th percentile, and are thus high earners. I feel like you've created a narrative in your head that raising taxes on anybody is essentially telling them they make enough money, and therefore all the money they make after a set amount should be taken away. Nobody is suggesting this. Raising taxes on incomes above $400k only taxes amounts above that income - the first $400k they make, more than 97% of Americans - is still taxed at relatively low rates that exist today. I guess I don't understand why you think raising rates from 35% to 39.4% is somehow taking all their money. It's a willful creation of a scenario that doesn't exist on your part to justify support of a political party that's brainwashed huge swaths of people into believing that taxing the wealthy is bad.

Exactly. Any tax increase is treated as a stepping stone to taxing away all money. Modest increases in taxes is not going to do that. It's simply returning tax rates to what they were in what, 2015? A family of 5 making a combined $400k are high income earners by any measure. That would mean they make more than 97% of households. Additionally, only income AFTER $400k is subject to additional taxes, so in your example that extra $1 is taxed at 40% instead of 35%. I hope losing out on a nickel doesn't break them. Articulate it so I can understand better? Perhaps I'm missing something.

I'm saying this is a typical slippery-slope argument unsupported by reality. In typical conservative fashion, any attempt to raise revenue is treated as a slippery-slope to communism - "if tax rates go from 35% to 39% on the highest earners, that's basically like taxing EVERYTHING" - and is also typical of how unserious Republicans are about the deficit. Again, why stop at 39%. It shows how unserious Democrats are. It’s been established that making over $400k is wealthy from your side. Why do people need to be MORE than the minimum amount of wealthy? All income over 400k and tax all net worth over $1 million. Give the people what they want.

I am pretty sure when the repayments froze the interest was frozen too. You were given the option to continue making payments if you wanted to.

I see, typos happen to me all the time as well! I guess my argument would be that the way to tax income is different than wealth. If you truly feel that taxing income above $400k because families in a high cost of living area may need that money, I disagree with you but that's fine. Make it $550k or any number. If you believe that only wealth should be taxed, this can be defined in numeric ways. Increase capital gains taxes on stock trades worth $1 million or more. This would only apply to the ultra-wealthy. Or define it however you want. The point is that Republicans refuse to consider anything that raises revenue - even if it targets only one of these proposals - which is why they're deeply unserious when it comes to reducing debt.

That’s not true.

https://www.mediaite.com/news/irs-whistleblower-in-hunter-biden-probe-goes-public-with-exclusive-cbs-sitdown-doj-slow-walked-the-investigation/

Remember, that tax increase would essentially return things to the Bush era, when the administration sold it as a TEMPORARY measure to spur the economy. It's now well proven that tax cuts don't really work as economic stimulators. Obama didn't let them sunset as scheduled, not wanting the legislative fight during Obamacare, and perhaps not caring that much. A modest increase to the top 3% -- still among the lowest rates in history -- shouldn't generate this much pearl clutching, but it's no longer about facts or history or building a better America.

remember that loan we forgave you? now you owe back interest on that. that will go over well with the young voters affected by that. guess the dems can thank MAGA for pushing more voters to the left

I think he's confused at your suggestion that raising capital gains taxes on stock transactions over $1 million dollars or raising taxes on individuals making over $400k a year is not a good idea. Presumably because people with that income spend it all - pay sales tax - and are thus taxed enough. This ignores the basic reality that the wealthy tend to invest their money rather than spend it all on goods and services and they take advantage of tax breaks/loose enforcement to lower their tax burden further. In addition, you do seem to think that raising taxes on the wealthy turns the economy into a socialist hellhole, typical of Republican voters and is not based in reality. Raising the tax rates of incomes at $400k from 35% to 40% will not turn this country into Sweden.

Saw this topic on the Huskers Reddit and thought it was a good topic for peak off season. Succeed - Stating the obvious. Rhule has a track record of builds and improvement. - Rhule’s energy. Kind of an intangible, but Rhule has a vibe about him that I think is important for the situation he’s in. This program needs some positive energy and he has that in spades. - Rhule’s vision sounds like the right fit. Run the ball. Play solid defense. I think we’ve had a string of coaches that have to show everyone they’re the smartest guy in the stadium and ultimately end up overthinking themselves. Winning in the B1G (and college football in general) isn’t exactly rocket science. Being a physical team that plays good defense and can run the ball should net a respectable amount of W’s. - The AD seems to be in a good place with Trev. Can’t exactly say that was the case with Eichorst and Moos. - Rhule wants to be here. Rhule has publicly noted that he’s making as much money right now as he would be if he was sitting at home unemployed. He doesn’t have to be here. Rhule seems to have a reverence for college football and Neb. Does anyone really believe Callahan or Riley were dying to be here? Bo was looking to bail as early as 2011. Despite all the “Golden Boy” headlines about Frost, he always had a bit of a tenuous relationship with Neb. I can’t say for certain, but I think Frost liked the idea of coming home to coach more than the reality of it. Of all those guys, Rhule seems to be the most N. Fail - His staff’s inexperience. This is my biggest and only real concern at this point. Rhule and his staff have a combined 1 year of experience coaching in the B1G. That 1 year belongs to Donovan Raiola from last year. 6 of his assistants have zero Power 5 experience. One assistant has never coached at the college level and one has never coached at any level. Maybe this truly is the group of guys to get things on track. But I’m not going to hold my breath. - The 3-3-5. Perhaps it’ll work. But I cant say I’m completely sold on it. I believe White has also said they won’t run it exclusively.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/republicans-attack-biden-administration-over-proposed-gas-stove-regulation-184651751.html Gas stoves emit air pollutants including nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and fine particulate matter at levels the World Health Organization has deemed unsafe. Exposure to these substances is linked to respiratory illness and cancer. Gas stoves also emit methane, a powerful planet-warming greenhouse gas, and produce carbon dioxide, the largest cause of climate change. The Biden administration is pursuing what it calls a “whole-of-government approach to the climate crisis” that entails regulating fossil fuels through every avenue possible, and the DOE is also required by law to require efficiency gains in consumer products.

@Archy1221 Well that took all of two minutes… https://studentaid.gov/announcements-events/covid-19 Repayment was paused with 0% interest. That is what student loan holders were told and that was US Dept of Education policy. Now Rs want to retroactively charge them interest. WTF? That’s some bulls#!t and I don’t care what party you support.

97 bottles of beer on the wall. 97 bottles of beer. Take one down, pass it around, 96 bottles of beer on the wall .... 97 Blaise Gunnerson

Good times ahead y'all. "But what about the (blue) babies?"

Sooooooo do you disagree?

Yeah, common sense tells me that pausing payments isn’t any kind of blessing if interest accrual was not also paused. In fact pausing only repayment while still charging interest would be particularly cruel if that wasn’t made abundantly clear. Of course common sense won’t get a guy very far when trying to figure out what our government does. @Archy1221 ? So is it the GOP trying to go back and screw people in debt or was interest always going to accrue through the pause? You were sticking up for the GOP move so I’m guessing you should know and have some proof.

Six months ago we beat Iowa like a red headed stepchild. F Iowa.

A high earner may or may not be wealthy. It's not always the case that a person makes a lot but is wealthy. I don't know why you define them the same. A person can make $400k, $800k or $10 million per year but spend all their money on buying self portraits worth $0 dollars. That person is a high earner but because literally all their money is tied up into worthless investments - in this case self portraits - their wealth could be $0. That person is not exempt from a tax on their income just because they're a stupid investor. This is why income taxes are different than capital gains taxes which are different than proposed wealth taxes. Just because @Archy1221 thinks income=wealth doesn't mean the tax code is written as such.

Just remember that he opened his Presidential run by claiming no books have been banned in Florida.

Trump talking about 2020 is detrimental to him. If I am DeSantis just ignore it and say we are focusing on 2024. Maybe throw in some lines about ensuring the integrity of all elections. Done.

People knew this would happen when the pause in repayment originally happened. Citizen takes out student loan…… Gov says we will pause your payments (if you want) but interest will still accrue …… Citizen says cool, I agree to those terms…… Gov says ok pause is over, here is what you owe……. Citizen says WTH, this is unfair for me to pay back what to agreed pay back. You all are used car salesman for making me do what I said I was gonna do…..

Could you elaborate on this a bit? What coaches have clung to the past? Because honestly I just don’t see it. Callahan and Riley absolutely didn’t. Bo kind of embraced the past, but I don’t think he was ever terribly preoccupied by it. He did things his own way. Frost would make the occasional reference or bring in a teammate from the 90’s to give a pep talk, but at the time, Frost was as modern of a coaching candidate as we could get. I hear this “Stuck in the 90’s” or “Stuck in the Past” trope constantly but I really just don’t see it. If Neb was stuck in the 90’s, wouldn’t we be still trying to run the option with walk ons from Ord? Was hiring two Pro Style/West Coast guys a result of us being “stuck in the 90’s?” Bo was seen as an excellent hire at the time. Frost was considered an absolute home run hire. If both of those were considered to be good hires at the time, isn’t that a good thing, and not a result of being fixated on an antiquated approach? Since 2003, I’d say Neb has been far more preoccupied with modernizing and reinventing itself than clinging to a bygone era. Sure, some folks on Twitter use the 90’s titles as a crutch when they’re getting roasted. Aside from that though, I think the Neb fan base could not be more focused on the future, and not the rear view mirror.

Yeah...but I really wish we weren't starting with Minnesota then CU both on the road. But...it's an opportunity for the team to prove something and set themselves up with momentum for the rest of the season.

MAGA wasting time passing a bill that is D.O.A. seems appropriate for the MAGA movement

In addition, you do seem to think that raising taxes on the wealthy turns the economy into a socialist hellhole, typical of Republican voters and is not based in reality. Raising the tax rates of incomes at $400k from 35% to 40% will not turn this country into Sweden. I’m saying why stop at 40%? Who needs more than $400k to survive? More taxes means better lives for everyone so let’s take it all after $400k. Give the people what they want. You are skipping past the example I gave that talked about net worth not high income. Investing contributes to the positive net worth side. Plenty of high income earners having nothing saved but a 401k. So are they wealthy or just high income earners?

She sounds like a fifth-grader pretending to be an adult.

So I know that site is a total Onion ripoff but this one is freaking funny!

What?

After 4 grandsons I finally got my girl! I'm the proud grandma to a beautiful grandDAUGHTER! SO HAPPY!!

Reasons he will fail: 1. I cheer for the Nebraska Cornhuskers, and for some reason I’m not allowed to have nice things. All the teams I cheer for have been bad for a long time. Sorry everyone, this is all my fault.