BigRedBuster

I like this quote because, while it's intended to describe the poor on welfare, it exactly states why I have issues with inherited wealth. You have a problem with inherited wealth? What would you propose de done about it in the example I posted in post #31? Read what I quoted and you'd see my issues with inherited wealth. As for post #31, yes, we should break the chain of inherited wealth, whether that's a rancher or a banker should make no difference. Why should someone get millions or billions of dollars having done nothing to earn it? As for my solution, it would be to allow small (relatively speaking) transfers of wealth but just prevent the gigantic transfers of wealth, which is similar to the estate tax today. I'd select a limit case - say $10 million/person - that a person could pass on to anyone they wanted (not just their kids), and then tax the rest at 90%. In this case, your ranchers could pass up to $20 million (for a couple) worth of the ranch without taxes. I'd even go so far as to agree to a higher limit like $50 million/person if the associated tax was also higher like 99%. Another idea would be to completely change the tax system to tax accumulated wealth instead of income (which is the rate of wealth increase/decrease). Then there's no need for an estate tax as the total inheritance is being taxed regardless of who owns it. I like this idea since it tends to encourage people to spend their money, which drives the economy. But it's probably impractical since someone like your ranchers may have their land value increase and then pay a lot more than their income stream in taxes, which likely leads to them having to sell parts of their ranch. I am so friggen against this it's amazing. You have a family who has a ranch. These kids have ALSO worked on this ranch since they probably could walk. Let's say they are now in their 50s and the parents die which creates an inheritance issue. These people who are now in their 50s should be forced to lose their ranch that they have also worked their entire lives to build and maintain? All this just because their parents passed away? What kind of loony toon logic is that?

How does society somehow inform or educate kids/people on programs available to them and how they can improve their lives with what is already in place and the importance to use those programs and use them wisely?

Yea, that's not how online testing works. Please explain.

There has to be some way to quantify or evaluate instead of just looking at wealth inequality. All the examples I have stated are going to end up (probably) in a pretty wide wealth inequality between these people throughout their lives. Is that because of some horrible Republican in Washington wanting to keep these people poor? No. In each of these situations, these kids are in a situation where they can make the choice to take advantage of government programs to improve their future economic standing. Some chose to take advantage of it and some not. It's PURELY their choice to do that....after all, we live in a free society. But, if people so choose to NOT take advantage of what is there, what responsibility does society have to keep pumping money into more and more programs to try to help them....and, to the extreme.....what right does society have to flat out take money away from the group that took advantage of the programs in place and give it to the ones that chose not to just because there is an income inequality? As for counter proposals.....I believe the government should continue to provide programs like educational assistance for people who need it. BUT....if they so choose not to use it.....what responsibility do these rich people have to keep pumping more and more of their money into more and more programs and to redistribute their wealth to them?

So, Dude.... How do we handle situations where there are systems in place for people to rise above their place in life where they are born but just don't? Right now, if you are a kid growing up in Nebraska in a poor household, you can pretty much get a free college education based on need. I know a girl who grew up in a single family home where the father is one of the hardest working people I know but his job just doesn't pay much. He told me that when his daughter graduated from HS, she had in place enough assistance to get through college completely free. I know another kid who is the oldest of about 5 kids with a mom that is a total piece of crap. All 5 kids are from different fathers and I'm not sure she even knows who some of the fathers are. This kid is amazing in that he basically has raised his younger siblings (and they are going to suffer by him not being there). BUT....he is headed to UNK to get a college education and I have every reason to believe this kid is going to do great things compared to where he came from....unless his mother somehow screws his life up even more. Meanwhile, I know a girl who graduated probably in the top 10% of her class. She's bright, well spoken and also came from a family with not much money. She decided she hates school and didn't want anything to do with college so she went and found guy with the same attitude. She now is a waitress at a cafe with a baby at home and the husband works a low paying job. I know a kid who rebelled against his parents and wouldn't take any advice from them and just graduated and is already shacking up with his girlfriend and both think they are so much smarter than anyone going to college while he works at a local garage changing oil. He could have easily gone to milford and at least gotten a mechanics degree to make more money.....but...he's too smart for that. She doesn't have a job. For all these kids, there were systems in place for them to rise above their family's lot in life. Some chose to go down the road that (chances are) will give them a better life financially even though they came from very poor familes. Meanwhile, others have chosen not to take advantage of the systems in place. These scenarios play out in every city and small town in America and all of it gets lumped into the statistics that we are all talking about. So.....fine....if people don't want to continue their education and want to start working....that's their choice. But.....then why are we making major policy decisions in Washington without taking into consideration people just sometimes don't give a crap and choose to live their lives in other ways?

So....correct me if I don't have this quite right. He is visiting, with his brother, aTm this weekend on the same day he is committing. He then is coming with his brother (who is a aTm commit) to FNL less than a week later. This is shaping up to be a really odd commitment/recruitment.

Good for him and us handling this maturely, if indeed we both are.Personally I'd rather have a kid decommit if he's not sure we are the school for him, rather than stay committed while not actually being committed. True. Sad to see some people on Twitter personally attacking him. Unless said adult is some sort of coach, there is absolutely no reason for anyone out of college to be tweeting a recruit. It's extremelycreepy and the negatives outweigh any potential benefits. I don't think you understand twitter very well. Twitter is easily understood. It's simply a system where people can write things in 140 character statements. What is pathetic is people's use of it to think tweeting directly to recruits is somehow cool and appropriate to do.

I like this quote because, while it's intended to describe the poor on welfare, it exactly states why I have issues with inherited wealth. You have a problem with inherited wealth? What would you propose de done about it in the example I posted in post #31?

This is a very good post. So much of the political discussion is in such generalities that people's views get skewed. Democrats talk about needing to raise taxes. Republicans talk about needing to lower taxes. It wouldn't matter if the tax rate for any class of people were 5% or 95%. These two groups would be yelling the same things. Why??? Because it works and it's easy then for Democrats to claim Republicans don't care about taking care of people and all they want to do is keep a hold of their money. It's easy for Republicans to claim Democrats don't care about how expensive anything is as long as it's paid for by other people's money.

Well, again, you're falling into stereotypes that aren't realities. Democrats don't represent the poor, historically, any more than Republicans represent the rich. And people are herd animals, meaning they'll vote for their team once that team is established. Look at how few people here are willing to abandon the Republican party despite the blatant evidence that under Trump it's unrecognizable from the party Reagan ran, yet most Republicans (Boomers, especially) identify with Reagan more than anyone. Democrats have, as recently as a generation ago, represented wealthy Southerners as much as poverty-stricken inner-city denizens. No, I'm not and your post states the point I'm making. There are people who believe Republicans are nothing but all for the rich and believe Democrats are these sensitive, caring people who are fighting for the poor and working class. Both of those have been proven wrong.

I've been concerned about this for a long time. He is setting it up so that once something happens, he can slam the hammer down and go way overboard on anything he wants to do. If there were a major terrorist attack right now on US soil, this would blow up and he instantly would be blaming the courts and Democrats for allowing it to happen....even though it would be total BS.

I don't have a problem with her interviewing Putin or Jones. But, like Knapp said, they need to be probing and news worthy interviews. She can't soft ball it. It would be absolutely fantastic if she interviewed Jones and drilled him on the outrageous disgusting things he has tried to convince people of. If she poo poos the interview and ends up pumping him up, it's total failure. If she interviews him and it exposes his trash, it's a good interview.

I still can't believe this is actually being considered. How stupid is he?

This sounds like a stereotype Republicans tell themselves about Democrats. It doesn't really work that way. Obama tried, with debatable success, to be a president for all Americans. He wasn't a champion of the poor, and he wasn't interested in redistribution of wealth. You're talking one politician there. What about all the times Democrats had control of congress? There was a period like that actually not that long ago. My point isn't that a politician is or isn't fighting for the poor. It's more of....if the rich are pumping all this money into the system and getting their politicians elected, how do the Dems go through periods of power? Remember, in this discussion, we are only talking about the top 20% of the population....thus....20% of the vote.

I'm all for examining what systems are in place to allow people to help themselves get out of poverty. However, what happens when someone just refuses to do what it takes to get out of poverty? Let's say there are systems in place where coal miners were able to get free training for new jobs and if those jobs were in another part of the country, so the government pays for relocation costs.....but the people say..."I'm not doing that because I like being a coal miner and I don't want to move."...even though there are no jobs in that small town. What then? Do we keep pumping more money into the system and keep taxing the wealthy more and more? At what point do we say something isn't working and look in a totally different direction?

OK...if these rich people who wrongfully feel entitled to keep their money and they manipulate the political arena to vote in people who support that, how do people like Clinton and Obama get elected and how do the Democrats get control of any part of Congress? Aren't they the ones looking out for these poor people?

Still holding out hope, but my confidence on this one is keeps going down.

Oh...and our secretary of energy proclaimed we will continue to lead the world in fighting climate change.

This guy is such full of sh#t. Listing to this, he was bragging that there have been over 700,000 jobs created since the election and he said...."If anyone would have said that would happen on election day, nobody would believe it possible". Well dip wad......that's only 100,000 jobs per month. almost every month the prior 4 years beat that. And people believe this crap.

On jobs creation. Over the last 4 months, an average of 148.5 thousand jobs have been created per month. Over the previous 48 months, only 9 months were below that 148.5 figure. That leaves 39 months that were better than the average over the last 4 months.

But is it his fault yet, or is it residual from Obama? Well...according to his tweet, he's taking full credit for it.

So....the coal miners who voted in Trump are not at fault for him being in office to expand coal mining and deregulate OSHA?

Because when you do that, people quote you out of context and all of a sudden you hate the miners and want them unemployed. Pandering, pure and simple. That's why politicians fight so hard. It's easier to smile and lie than face the future. WARNING....extremely insensitive statement follows. I find myself not feeling sorry for coal miners who get injured, killed or sick from the job. If you are going to fight this hard to keep those jobs instead of supporting other jobs that are safer, I'm sorry, it's your risk. It's like the bull rider that gets paralyzed or killed. Dude....it was your option to do that when there were other options of things to do.

OK...here is a micro economic true story that sort of sums up my feelings on this. In our little small town we have several families that are very wealthy. They support one hell of a lot of stuff that goes on in this town. Some of it is done publicly and a lot of it is done privately. They even have helped a lot of individual people when needed. They are also very glad to do it. I have also been on committees or in meetings for different projects around the community and when fund raising comes up, inevitably, someone always says...."Well, we know we can get Mr and Mrs. XYZ to pump in a bunch of money for this." Now, every once in a while that Mr. and Mrs. XYZ says "no". Also inevitably that will get out and I will hear someone in the community grumble..."Well, they're just rich and don't want to help pay for this". The XYZs are not sitting back and saying...."Screw them, it's my money and I refuse to let go of it with my grubby little hands because those poor people disgust me". No....it's usually simply because they get so tired of constantly being asked for money instead of trying to come up with some other way of the organization raising the money. How does this all relate to national government and the top 20% or 1%? Let's take healthcare. It seems like every time something came up with funding of the program it's always...."The rich can pay for it". Think about it. It was mandated through employment that employers have health insurance..."Business owners (rich) pay for it.) Oh....people can't afford the premiums???? We'll subsidize the premiums with income tax dollars. So....rich people who pay taxes are going to pay for it. Government needs a lot more record keeping on health care? Oh...yeah...we will just have corporations do that for us (adding cost to business owners). And people are aghast that they fight back over this? We're talking about the top 80-97% fighting for the top 1%??? That's because that 80-97% feel this too. Something I always respected Clinton and Gore for in office was that they talked A LOT about cutting cost in government and using that as a major point in balancing the budget. That makes it much more palatable to then go say...."Rich, we need to raise your taxes". Back to healthcare. When was the last time anyone saw anyone from Washington actually talking about CUTTING COST OF HEALTHCARE!!!!!! I can't remember the last time that happened.

Of course I would be..... as I should be. I just have a real problem with lumping groups of people together in a conversation and somehow pointing out....."yea....we need to go after THOSE guys and we need to somehow stop people from supporting THOSE guys".