LukeinNE

Well, if it's any consolation, it looks like we're first out of the schools that didn't cheat.

The schedule is what really seems to get everybody about Iowa. They certainly have some good returning pieces, but, I don't think they're the best team in the West. Head-to-head against Wisconsin on a neutral site and I'd go for the Badgers. Plus, I don't trust Iowa to steer the ship properly. They're almost always a solid lock to screw things up. Yeah, I agree. Iowa looks like a solid 8-4 type team, except with pretty much the easiest schedule imaginable. But I can't pick them based on that alone. They thought they were in great shape in 2012 with a creampuff schedule (first ten games were against unranked opponents). 8 losses (including ISU and a MACrifice) later, they were screeching for Ferentz's head.

The laws as they currently exist result in a certain number of companies adopting creative strategies to avoid taxation. The proposed law reduces that incentive for some companies. It's not too complicated. Or they could just change the offending law instead of punishing corporations for working within the crappy one that Congress passed in the first place. But no, there are slumbering liberals to wake up and get to the polls in November, so truth (Congress is inept/corrupt) has to take a backseat to the usual corporations are evil nonsense.

uhhh . . . isn't that exactly what they're doing? How exactly is discriminating against companies who follow the existing law in a way that Democrats don't like a fix to the current law? Welcome aboard the Repeal ObamaCare While Keeping Most Of It, Passing a Balanced Budget Amendment, Raise the Minimum Wage, Cut Taxes (except on the rich), Cut Spending (except everything but foreign aid) Express.

Election year politicking at it's finest. If they were serious about this issue, 1) they wouldn't have called it "The No Federal Contracts for Corporate Deserters Act" and 2) they wouldn't be trying to fire up their base with stupid legislation to punish corporations for perfectly legal behavior, but rather address the laws THEY ENACTED IN THE FIRST PLACE that promote inversion.

Let it develop organically. As long as the Big Ten doesn't screw around with the divisions anymore (probably wishful thinking), Nebraska, Iowa, and Wisconsin are going to play some very important games down the line. At some point, something will happen that will make sense for a trophy game. (I'm all for a missing piece of turf to commemorate the NU-PSU games of 1982 and 2012 if that became an annual series again). Another trophy I could get behind is a Quadrangle of Hate trophy for NU-MN-IA-WI.

I've got to admit I haven't looked at any of the bills, so I can't tell for sure, but here's a paragraph about the Senate bill you were referencing: So unless I'm completely mixed up by all of this (wouldn't be the first time), the House and Senate have both passed, nearly unanimously, very similar bills that they are currently trying to reconcile in a conference committee between the two houses of Congress. Those negotiations have now broken down.

I'm fine with this. I'd rather be a bit of a dark horse and surprise people. That's more fun than meeting or falling short of expectations. If we can get some good quarterbacking and avoid catastrophe on special teams I think we'll be the best team in the division. That doesn't mean we'll win it, of course, our schedule does us no favors compared to Wisky and Iowa.

That article looks like the House and Senate are equally responsible. How do you figure? The Senate has passed a bill. 93-3 IIRC. So did the House.....421-0.

That article looks like the House and Senate are equally responsible.

Sure it is. I'm not making any points about what ought to happen with the safety net, and yet you feel compelled to set up and knock down arguments I'm not making in order to declare victory. In any case, you're going to have to do better than the opinion of a left wing economist's opinion on CNN and the analysis of a left-wing think tank in DC. Surely you wouldn't let it fly if I started citing the Heritage Foundation and Charles Krauthammer all over the place. Also, Paul Ryan very conveniently unveiled his anti-poverty program yesterday: What a monster. How much should minimum-wage earners rely on external sources like government subsidies or subsidized housing? Enough to live in good health with a roof over their heads. That's going to vary from place to place.

Then it is your job to demonstrate where and why it won't work, instead of complaining about how Lincoln might just be a particularly good place to be poor. Child care subsides are available in Nebraska for low income families. Your last point is a straw man. I'm arguing against a minimum wage hike, I haven't said in this conversation or anywhere else that I want assistance to the poor gutted. That being said, your logical quandary still works for this conversation. You have implicitly admitted that a minimum wage income is doable for a single person and that a minimum wage income + government benefits is doable for a single person with kids, and yet support a minimum wage hike anyway - why? So really, your argument boils down to: I support hiking the minimum wage by nearly 50% because although it is currently not necessary, it will be after the right wing (no names or proposals given) shreds the safety net.

Er....the NRA isn't seeking government protection for gun rights and NOW isn't seeking government protection for abortion rights. Right or wrong, modern society considers both to be rights, that is things people are entitled to do, should they want to. In both cases, those groups are seeking to prevent government interference with those rights, rather than seeking government protection against other groups. Yes - I had the misfortune of participating in collegiate speech for a couple of years. Our coach and a handful of the female team members were proud card-carrying NOW members and I endured many a lecture on why everything from organized sports to Miss, Ms. and Mrs. are tools of oppression for the patriarchy.

I guess I have to admit being confused by what you're asking as well, Knapp. I mean, a quick visit to NOW's (the current authority on feminism, right?) website reveals calls to overturn SCOTUS's abortion clinic buffer zone ruling, firing George Will for writing a column about campus rape that annoyed them, pay equality laws, and a 10 point gender equality act to "end discrimination against women." I think the mere act of talking about discrimination against women indicates that they think they're underdogs in society, and calls for government laws to rectify this situation sounds a lot like asking for government protection to me. But you're a smart guy, and I assume you know this already, so I sense I'm missing what you're getting at.

This....uh...well.. Ok, so we have a problem: tens of thousands of refugees at the border, and we're struggling find places for all of them. Obama's solution: unilaterally change the definition of a refugee without consulting Congress so we can fly more kids here on the taxpayers' dime. Just a note to liberals: when conservatives insist on border security upgrades before legalization for fear of getting double-crossed by the Democrats on the border security part.....this would be an example of why that is.

Transportation - StarTran in Lincoln offers 31 day low income bus passes for $8. Clothing - It's hard to set parameters on what's needed, but there's plenty of perfectly good clothing at Goodwill etc, for $5-10. Speaking personally, my wardrobe now is pretty much exactly what it was 1-2 years ago, a few Christmas and birthday presents aside. Rent - The Lincoln Housing Authority has 1 BR apartments available for $350-$400/mo. Alternatively/additionally, roommates are always an option. So, assuming 21.75 working days a month x 8 hours x $7.25 = $1261.50 a month in gross pay, you'll get to take home around $1065 of that. Taking what we've discussed: Rent: 400 Clothing: 25 Food: 200 Transportation: 8 Utilities: 100 Total: 733 That leaves you with ~$330 a month for incidentals, a cell phone, cable, a car, your portion of employer-sponsored health insurance. There's a reason most critiques of the minimum wage involve the "single mom with kids" scenario. Of course those critiques neglect to mention the government support available for such a situation. Nah, utilities no way 100 (phone, elec, nat gas) Clothing, meh, a t shirt cost you that much Rent and food probably Ok, not sure about bus cost or how well they get you close to destinations of work place. I didn't include phone in utilities, I included it in other, and prepaid cell phones are available for a low price. Landlines are far from a necessity anymore, I don't have one. I paid about $175 last month for water, electric and gas, and I live in a free standing house, not a 600 square foot apartment. $100 is a reasonable estimate. Again, consignment stores are far cheaper for clothes, and someone who's working at McDonalds or Walmart doesn't exactly need an expensive wardrobe. StarTran's service through Lincoln is exceptional, particularly in areas where minimum wage jobs would abound. As for the pricing, I provided a link taking you straight to StarTran's pricing page.

Firing squad = only Utah. Heroin enema it is.

Transportation - StarTran in Lincoln offers 31 day low income bus passes for $8. Clothing - It's hard to set parameters on what's needed, but there's plenty of perfectly good clothing at Goodwill etc, for $5-10. Speaking personally, my wardrobe now is pretty much exactly what it was 1-2 years ago, a few Christmas and birthday presents aside. Rent - The Lincoln Housing Authority has 1 BR apartments available for $350-$400/mo. Alternatively/additionally, roommates are always an option. So, assuming 21.75 working days a month x 8 hours x $7.25 = $1261.50 a month in gross pay, you'll get to take home around $1065 of that. Taking what we've discussed: Rent: 400 Clothing: 25 Food: 200 Transportation: 8 Utilities: 100 Total: 733 That leaves you with ~$330 a month for incidentals, a cell phone, cable, a car, your portion of employer-sponsored health insurance. There's a reason most critiques of the minimum wage involve the "single mom with kids" scenario. Of course those critiques neglect to mention the government support available for such a situation.

I've always been partial to the firing squad. It's cheap, simple, the number of things that can go wrong are pretty limited and if they do, it can be very quickly rectified. Our national obsession with sanitizing executions has led us to adopt a procedure that isn't particularly reliable, especially now with anti-death penalty activists blocking access to the most effective drugs. If we must stick with lethal injection, what's wrong with heroin? That'll deliver a quick, painless death, and I'm sure we could give Afghan poppy farmers a better price than the Taliban..

Back to the minimum wage issue, some Congressional Democrats are doing some sort of #livethewage campaign for a week, where they live within the confines of a current minimum wage budget for a week. Dem Rep. Jan Schakowsky scores a bit of an own goal.

Typically such plans don't take sufficient form to analyze, but my guess is that it would involve a general reduction in rates, paired with a dramatic curbing of exemptions, deductions, and tax credits. The net tax effect would depend on which of the latter category are retained and which are eliminated. The one example I can think of would be Herman Cain's 9/9/9 plan, which replaces virtually the entire federal tax structure (including nearly all deductions and so on) with 9% taxes on income, sales, and corporations. It would substantially raise taxes on lower income folks through the sales tax, though the income and corporate taxes would be a wash. The bigger concern with that one was the hole it'd blow in the federal deficit.

What CAN be done? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm really clueless on what sort of preventative measures could be taken.

Nobody is saying that local governments are immune from corruption and inefficiency. But it's pretty much a given that in small organizations, the scale of its f*ck ups will be smaller, and the organization itself will be far more responsive to pressure for change. Most of the time, you can read between the lines and get to the real point of "I don't like this new federal law. Something Something State's Rights!" That sounds pretty similar to my objection to Elizabeth Warren's progressive checklist.

Again, the burden of proof must naturally fall on the government to justify its intrusion into a particular area, especially when a locality already has that exact function covered. I have yet to see the FBI doing traffic enforcement on I-80.

In fairness, "new" doesn't necessarily mean "crappy." I fully expect Wisconsin to get rocked by LSU at the start of the year, but in the conference schedule they catch an enormous break, with Nebraska and Iowa in the last 3 weeks, so their defense is going to have a lot of time to gel under fairly favorable conditions. Their only tough conference game before that is at NW, who they always beat like a drum. The Sparty game isn't the only factor that makes Nebraska's road harder. The fact that we have to go to Camp Randall and Kinnick frankly concerns me more. Splitting those games probably won't get it done unless we also beat Sparty. If we go to Indy this year, we will have earned it. The conference schedule is stacked pretty heavily against us relative to our competitors.