Dr. Strangelove

I do think this aspect is a bit overblown. I know of my own personal experience in college talking to players - who seemed genuinely nervous about extra benefits - as well as the experience of a friend who owns a memorabilia store. Players were extremely nervous to even talk about signing items for pay until they graduated, and the sums of money weren't large. Was it happening? Sure, but I don't think it was as widespread as people think.

One of those TEs is rated higher than Nelson. Talent consolidation in college football is becoming a major issue. Hopefully Nelson stays with Nebraska.

Who? Buford and Nelson perhaps. I'm not sure who else. I get that. But the most common talking point when a coach starts a job recruiting 3* players is that they are "his" type of player. All coaches get this treatment after being hired. There isn't anything new or unique about recruiting track athletes and trying to make them into football stars. Maybe he will, maybe he won't. But Nebraska supposedly has a large NIL endowment and it's not leading to any surge in talent the team desperately needs.

Coming at a time when the Federal Reserve is trying to limit growth as much as possible no less.

The talent level of this recruiting class is concerning. Perhaps Nebraska plans on supplementing with transfer Portal talent from schools with hoards of talent. I mean this in a way that it's part of their long term recruiting strategy.

Related to this recruit or someone else?

If there's one thing I've learned about recruiting, it's that it doesn't matter how much talent the top teams hoard. New players will just keep going there.

Such is the nature of politics. I personally find it more funny than anything, but it is something both parties do because it works. Now, I would say that the economic recovery is very robust, and snapping back all the jobs past during COVID is still an accomplishment. In the UK and other European countries, recovering jobs lost during COVID has proven difficult.

This is incredibly funny. And to think people voted for this, twice, and will do so a third time.

Yeah! He's not some obvious opportunistic grifter that I fell for last time. He hasn't just copied Trump's schtick - down to his hand movements - he has deep policy goals that help every day Americans! Now sure, he never discusses that policy, and his campaign thus far relies entirely on political theater. But these Republican politicians won't fool me again! Fool me once, shame on you. Grift me 47 times with everybody shouting into the void that my electoral choices are dangerous, well, it makes me want to vote even harder!

I think McCarthy thing to negotiate from a position of power, mostly to cut services for the poor, is funny - because his voting baseis too crazy to vote for anything that involves a functioning government. If Republicans were normal, actually had policy or had motives outside of "democrats bad", then bipartisanship is good. These Republicans are mostly opportunistic morons with the only interest of causing harm because they think it helps them get elected.

Democrats saving Republicans from themselves today is hilarious. Republicans are so far gone that their voting base won't tolerate any cooperation with Biden - so Dems had to rescue the agreement.

A straighshooter. Really, truly cared about Conservatism and his America First Agenda. Then George Soros and the evil DEMON-crats won in 2020 and Trump, who I voted for twice, just isn't the same now. There was no possible way for me to know that such an honest, Patriotic, hard working American would turn on a dime like this. Luckily I won't be duped again, Ron DeSantis is as genuine as they come!

.... which is?

A good chunk of the Republican Caucas are 'No' votes on any legislation. It turns out that "Gubmint is bad!" as a political gambit means you get morons and grifters in government. Since these people can't be appeased with anything other than the dissolution of government in general, you get what you see today.

Hey now, Rick Scott has the political instincs of a goldfish. He's a national treasure who delivered the Senate for Democrats last year. Let this man say and do whatever he wants. Remember when he tried to claim Democrats cut Medicare funding when they actually saved money? Good times.

Retroactively charging interest rates is not borrowers paying back what they owe.

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.

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.

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.

Sooner or later he's going to have to state his opinion on if he thinks the results of the 2020 election were legitimate or not. Although this alone should tell you enough about the Republican base and the state of the party.

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. 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?

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.

It's going to be interesting to see if he forces DeSantis to become an election denier. If DeSantis disagrees, he's a RINO. If he agrees to appeal to the moronic Trump base, he's unelectable. No matter who wins the primary, the match up with Biden will be 50/50. No matter who it is.