RedDenver

Shapiro is extremely disingenuous and no exception in this tweet. The right-wing brought up her dancing video, not the left or the mainstream media.

If your concern is fairness and equality of taxation, then let's take a look at wealth distribution to see who has the money: The top 1% has 40% of the wealth, so having 40% of the tax burden is not only reasonable but equitable and fair. But notice that you've cited that not the top 1% but rather the top 10% have 40% of the tax burden, so they're not being taxed at a fair rate based on their wealth. Also, the bottom 40% have less wealth than the top 1%, which is another reason saying the bottom don't pay enough is misleading: And the top has been getting richer since the Great Recession, so it makes sense to create new higher marginal tax brackets: P.S. Thanks for the good discussion and debate. It gives me hope that reasonable people can still disagree about what's best for our country without degenerating into shouting matches or worse.

I wonder how much donor money those same senior Democrats get from fossil fuel industries?

If goods and services cost rich people the same percentage of their wealth as they do poor people, then I'd agree with you. But once someone is making far, far, far more than what's needed not just to survive but also to live luxurious lifestyles, then why shouldn't that additional money be used to support the society that's supporting that lifestyle? Because the other options are to take the money to support society from those that need that money much, much more than the rich or to reduce the money used to support our society. The first option is far more unethical than taking that money from those that can easily afford it, and the second option tends to lead to worsening conditions for the majority in the society and that society ending - including for the rich. Historically, the strongest the US economy and middle-class have been is when the top tax bracket paid the most: around 90% tax rate on income over $3 million (in today's dollars). Note that Ocasio-Cortez is discussing far less than that: 70% rate on income over $10 million.

What about taking 70-90% of their 10 millionth dollar? Or of their 100 millionth dollar? We're talking about progressive tax brackets so it's never going to be 70-90% of their money. Plus, they're paying the same rate on their first $20k, $50k, etc. as everyone else. (Or probably less because of capital gains not counting as standard income and various tax loopholes that lots of money affords lawyers to exploit.)

I'd prefer to remove their disproportionate power and damage to democracy without taking their money, but I'm not sure that's possible.

So let me get this straight: a risk manager would tell me to lock my car doors even though there's no risk to leaving them unlocked but there is a risk of getting a window broken if I lock the car? There's literally nothing in the car worth anything. I mean, thieves are welcome to take as many of my $2 sun glasses as they want.

Why? If there's nothing worth stealing in the car, then I'd rather they just go through it without breaking a window.

Plus the Soviet people rebelling against an authoritarian state.

That's all fine. But the pay-go rule doesn't help with any of that. It simply forces another vote over whether to waive the rule depending on if the CBO says the new bill is estimated to cost more than the proposed cuts and revenue increases and gives the Republicans an additional talking-point about whether the Dems are following their own rule. The bill can be budget-balanced regardless of any pay-go rule - so the only reason to have this rule is if Pelosi and the Dems want another way to prevent spending but only spending by the Dem-controlled House. The Republicans don't have this problem because they don't stupidly handicap themselves.

These types of own-goals are just embarrassing for the Dems. Pelosi needs to be removed from leadership. Sad that only 2 members have the smarts and the integrity to point out how stupid this is.

The pay-go rule isn't about paying for things and balancing budgets. It's about procedures and stupidity in politics. This rule simply gives Republicans in the House the ammo to shoot down spending, which the Dems are going to stupidly just hand over to them. Notice that this rule wasn't in effect for the Republicans when they were in power. This is another example of why the Dems are bad at politics.

Memorial in Lincoln was open through the 80's and at least the mid 90's - not sure since then. Folsom Field is open - if you're in Boulder, you can go take pictures in it. Aloha Stadium on Oahu was open in the late 90's. Florida, Tenn, FSU, South Carolina are all places I've just walked on into over the last couple decades. I'm probably forgetting some.

A lot of places are like that. There's no pressing need to lock up and guard an empty stadium.

That joke is what - a decade old now? Let it rest in peace.

The Huskers ran 30 times for 103 yards, which is 3.43 ypc, and threw 37 times for 145 yards, which is 3.92 ypa. link Neither running nor passing were working particularly well with the final stats showing passing to have a slight edge. Breakdown by quarter to tell you what the stats were telling our coaches as the game went on: 1st Quarter: 7 rushes for 40 yards (5.71 ypc) and 11 passes for 37 yards (3.36 ypa) 2nd Quarter: 7 rushes for 18 yards (2.57 ypc) and 11 passes for 37 yards (3.36 ypa) 3rd Quarter: 5 rushes for 13 yards (2.6 ypc) and 4 passes for 27 (6.75 ypa) 4th Quarter: 11 rushes for 32 yards (2.91 ypc) and 11 passes for 44 yards (4 ypa) There's not much there to say we should have been running the ball more. Also of note is that Washington only had 3 carries for 19 yards so his ypc is a small sample size. (Did he get hurt in that game? I can't remember.)

What exactly could they have done? Huskers weren't running the ball well on that MSU defense.

I disagree. The story is coherent and moves at a good pace. The trouble with an ensemble movie like this is that the character development and emotional investment were in the previous movies that led up to this one. It's a new way of doing movies and storytelling - more like a long-running miniseries than stand alone movies - so not everyone is going to like it. Personally, I think it's great since it doesn't require every movie to develop all the characters and instead can spend time on the current plot instead of catching everyone up.

I would hope ND's (or any team's) performance this season wouldn't matter next year or the years after. And I'm in favor of an 8 team playoff with the P5 champ's and the top rated G5 get in, which only allows the committee ammunition for selecting the top G5 and 2 at-large and then setting the order of 1-8. That removes most of the power of the committee and/or other ranking methods.

I used to root for the other teams in the Big 8. Then I rooted against all the non-Husker teams in the B12 after the old B8 teams stupidly voted in lockstep with the SWC castoffs. I've always rooted against the B10 and SEC, and I will continue to root against all the non-Husker teams. Who gives a crap if Minnesota goes to a bowl game or never wins another game? And I don't buy the perception arguments that somehow the conference being better means anything.

That's very similar to our house. We play Ticket to Ride, Settlers of Catan, Monopoly, and Dragonwood when my 8 year old is playing. And we add Munchkins, Exploding Kittens, Unstable Unicorns, and Jackbox (group video game everyone plays together using their smart phone) for the adults. Jackbox gets better the later it gets and the more people are drinking.

I doubt it. If we have another great President, then everyone after Reagan and until the next great one will simply be forgotten or an afterthought - like the ones between Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt.

Because even ND fans can enjoy the holidays regardless of schedule.