Last time I checked, income status in this country doesn't include making certain rules for anyone.  Don't like the fact that some have made huge sums of money and are wealthy?  Why not do what it takes to do the same thing yourself rather than "steal" from them?  Our laws are supposed to apply equally across the board whether you talk about social status, income, etc.

 

Contrary to what the left talking points are, there are many in this country that are "wealthy" through their own hard work.

The deck is clearly stacked in the favor of those already wealthy to amass even more wealth at the expense of those that are not while at the same time limiting the barrier to entry in the wealth accumulation market. 

---

Stealing money from a person through government force (or any other form of force) and giving it to another is a horrible thing in my book.


 

If profits have skyrocketed (and probably only true for the corporations that are favored by our rulers) it's because of corporate welfare and the government handing out money at such low interest rates that it's essentially free. Once again, it's government taking from one group by force and handing it to another that is the problem.

 

There is an inherent conflict between two ideals that most Americans ascribe to: private property rights and equality of opportunity.   Most people would agree that a child born to a poor unwed mother does not have the same level of opportunity that a rich kid has.   On the other hand, most people would agree that people should get the rewards in life that they earn, and if a rich guy wants to send his son to a private school, he should be able to do that.   So how do we level the playing field without completely throwing out the right to private property and the incentive to work hard?   We compromise.   And that  is why we have this mildly redistributive system that attempts to balance the right to keep what you earn and dispose  of it as you wish, against the right to equal opportunity and the American dream. 

 

If we strictly enforce private property rights, with no redistribution at all, we wind up with an aristocracy- a permanent upper class and a permanent underclass, where rich kids have it made without ever earning anything, and climbing out of poverty is almost impossible.   On the other hand, if we go too far in redistributing wealth, we kill all the incentive to work hard and succeed.  

 

And that's why we have a mildly redistributive system.   It's not communism.   I'm not sure what you'd call it.  It's a compromise. 

---

There is an inherent conflict between two ideals that most Americans ascribe to: private property rights and equality of opportunity.   Most people would agree that a child born to a poor unwed mother does not have the same level of opportunity that a rich kid has.   On the other hand, most people would agree that people should get the rewards in life that they earn, and if a rich guy wants to send his son to a private school, he should be able to do that.   So how do we level the playing field without completely throwing out the right to private property and the incentive to work hard?   We compromise.   And that  is why we have this mildly redistributive system that attempts to balance the right to keep what you earn and dispose  of it as you wish, against the right to equal opportunity and the American dream. 

 

If we strictly enforce private property rights, with no redistribution at all, we wind up with an aristocracy- a permanent upper class and a permanent underclass, where rich kids have it made without ever earning anything, and climbing out of poverty is almost impossible.   On the other hand, if we go too far in redistributing wealth, we kill all the incentive to work hard and succeed.  

 

And that's why we have a mildly redistributive system.   It's not communism.   It's controlled capitalism.  

Well said. 

---

Well said. 

 

I changed the part where I called it "controlled capitalism."   I'm not sure what to call it.   But it's definitely not communism. 

---

I changed the part where I called it "controlled capitalism."   I'm not sure what to call it.   But it's definitely not communism. 

Common sense?

---

There is an inherent conflict between two ideals that most Americans ascribe to: private property rights and equality of opportunity.   Most people would agree that a child born to a poor unwed mother does not have the same level of opportunity that a rich kid has.   On the other hand, most people would agree that people should get the rewards in life that they earn, and if a rich guy wants to send his son to a private school, he should be able to do that.   So how do we level the playing field without completely throwing out the right to private property and the incentive to work hard?   We compromise.   And that  is why we have this mildly redistributive system that attempts to balance the right to keep what you earn and dispose  of it as you wish, against the right to equal opportunity and the American dream. 

 

If we strictly enforce private property rights, with no redistribution at all, we wind up with an aristocracy- a permanent upper class and a permanent underclass, where rich kids have it made without ever earning anything, and climbing out of poverty is almost impossible.   On the other hand, if we go too far in redistributing wealth, we kill all the incentive to work hard and succeed.  

 

And that's why we have a mildly redistributive system.   It's not communism.   I'm not sure what you'd call it.  It's a compromise. 

 

I understand where you are coming from and somewhat agree with you on a few points.

 

The first key point is the "equality of opportunity".  To me, "equality of opportunity" does not equal "income equality".  I agree with you that a child born to a poor unwed mother doesn't have the same level of opportunity as a child born to a married couple that happen to be financially secure.  So how do we "level the playing field" so to speak?  The liberal answer is usually to throw more money at the problem in the form of welfare/food stamps and paying for it by taxing the rich even more, or claiming that the rich don't pay their "fair share".

 

Why not address the issue at hand by providing vouchers for school choice to the poor mother so that she can send her child to a better performing school?

 

Why not look deeper into the issue of the skyrocketing numbers of children born to unwed mothers and the skyrocketing numbers of single parent homes?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

So that's bad, in your book? I know what you're trying to say, but I'm sorry, social programs are not a horrible thing.


Especially when wages have stayed stagnant, productive has increased, and profits have skyrocketed. So much for supply side economics...

 

In my book, yes increasing funding for social programs as they currently operate is a bad thing.  As most social programs operate right now, they don't "give a leg up" to most people, rather they become a "way of life" to many of them.

 

The other issue is the rampant fraud and abuse that occurs with the way that these programs operate.

 

Imagine how much money would be saved by reforming social programs rather than simply throwing more money at the issue.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

So that's bad, in your book? I know what you're trying to say, but I'm sorry, social programs are not a horrible thing.


Especially when wages have stayed stagnant, productive has increased, and profits have skyrocketed. So much for supply side economics...

They are a horrible thing when able bodied individuals collect money for doing nothing.  No limits are set such a time frame, no incentive to get off of it.  Those Far too many of those people on it have no self worth and little pride.  Tell me how that is a good thing?  Again, as I stated earlier I have no problem with workfare or even welfare it there are limits and incentives to get off of it.  There are none however and what we have today is an absolute disgrace to the human spirit.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Food Stamps also doubled under Bush.  


Meanwhile Corporate Welfare still outspends Social Welfare.

I see liberals bring this up often.  Where is written that the right is for corporate welfare?  I have found no one in my circle that is for it.  Politicians on both sides of the isle are all for it because that is how they stay in office.  Paying back the donors.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

They are a horrible thing when able bodied individuals collect money for doing nothing.  No limits are set such a time frame, no incentive to get off of it.  Those people on it have no self worth and no pride.  Tell me how that is a good thing?  Again, as I stated earlier I have no problem with workfare or even welfare it there are limits and incentives to get off of it.  There are none however and what we have today is an absolute disgrace to the human spirit.

 

I don't think that I would go that far.  There are some that fit your description, but not all of them.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I see liberals bring this up often.  Where is written that the right is for corporate welfare?  I have found no one in my circle that is for it.  Politicians on both sides of the isle are all for it because that is how they stay in office.  Paying back the donors.

 

I would recommend people read the book titled "Clinton Cash".  It is pretty eye-opening.  While there is no solid proof in the book, and the author acknowledges that fact, it brings to light how Hillary Clinton just happened to change her publicly stated view regarding certain things shortly after a hefty sum was either paid to Bill Clinton or after a large "donation" was made to their "charity fund".

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I don't think that I would go that far.  There are some that fit your description, but not all of them.

I stand corrected and fixed it.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

I see liberals bring this up often.  Where is written that the right is for corporate welfare?  I have found no one in my circle that is for it.  Politicians on both sides of the isle are all for it because that is how they stay in office.  Paying back the donors.

It's not attacked nearly as viciously as Food Stamps are.  Keep in mind that around half of the able bodies recipients on Food Stamps are Working.  And around 80% have recently had a job, or get a job not long after being on food stamps.  


Also keep in mind that the average individual only gets $133 per participant.  People say that they're lazy, but would you quit your job for $133/month?  Or even $200/month?  People love to point out the Beach Bum guy, but he's someone who's mooching off his friends and family and anyone willing to give him anything.  He's certainly not the typical food stamp recipient.  


People say "Get a job!"  Great idea.  If only our economy were... you know healthy enough where there weren't several people who plain gave up looking for work.  Then you have those who do work, and still can't afford food.  


I'm sure there'll be anecdotal evidence of food stamp abuse of people they know being lazy.  And I'm sure it's true.  Some people are lazy.  But given that 80% of working age able adults either worked within a year before receiving food stamps, or a year after, I'd say that's not very representative of the majority at all. I mean our neighbor fired shots at our house one time.  Is that representative of most gun owners?  You certainly hear about a lot of bad gun owners on the news too.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I understand where you are coming from and somewhat agree with you on a few points.

 

The first key point is the "equality of opportunity".  To me, "equality of opportunity" does not equal "income equality".  I agree with you that a child born to a poor unwed mother doesn't have the same level of opportunity as a child born to a married couple that happen to be financially secure.  So how do we "level the playing field" so to speak?  The liberal answer is usually to throw more money at the problem in the form of welfare/food stamps and paying for it by taxing the rich even more, or claiming that the rich don't pay their "fair share".

 

Why not address the issue at hand by providing vouchers for school choice to the poor mother so that she can send her child to a better performing school?

 

Why not look deeper into the issue of the skyrocketing numbers of children born to unwed mothers and the skyrocketing numbers of single parent homes?

So the solution that does not involved throwing money at the problem is to, throw money at the problem? Only this time, money that ends up with for profit school systems?

---

It's not attacked nearly as viciously as Food Stamps are.  Keep in mind that around half of the able bodies recipients on Food Stamps are Working.  And around 80% have recently had a job, or get a job not long after being on food stamps.  


Also keep in mind that the average individual only gets $133 per participant.  People say that they're lazy, but would you quit your job for $133/month?  Or even $200/month?  People love to point out the Beach Bum guy, but he's someone who's mooching off his friends and family and anyone willing to give him anything.  He's certainly not the typical food stamp recipient.  


People say "Get a job!"  Great idea.  If only our economy were... you know healthy enough where there weren't several people who plain gave up looking for work.  Then you have those who do work, and still can't afford food.  


I'm sure there'll be anecdotal evidence of food stamp abuse of people they know being lazy.  And I'm sure it's true.  Some people are lazy.  But given that 80% of working age able adults either worked within a year before receiving food stamps, or a year after, I'd say that's not very representative of the majority at all. I mean our neighbor fired shots at our house one time.  Is that representative of most gun owners?  You certainly hear about a lot of bad gun owners on the news too.  

 

I agree with you, but I don't know if I really believe the numbers that you have presented, and honestly, I'm too lazy right now to look it up right now.

 

So again I ask, what is the solution to the underlying problem?

 

The very first thing that comes to mind is that the solution is NOT raising taxes period.  Throwing money at a problem doesn't "fix" it.

 

In my mind, the first step in resolving the problem is fixing the corruption and the fraud that takes place within the system.  Doing that would probably save millions of tax dollars and is the primary driving force for the argument that people make when they bring up "the beach bum guy".  The immediate thing that comes to mind is a time limit as far as how long people can receive benefits.  What that particular time limit should be, I really couldn't say.

 

Next I would be all for restructuring the program in a way that would truly help those that need it.  Exactly how to do such a thing is beyond me, but I would like to see it function in a way that helps people put themselves in a position to where they don't need it any longer, rather than have to depend on it as "regular income" or a regular way of life.  Setting time limits and other requirements in order to receive assistance would be a good start.  The other "requirements" should include proof of either actively trying to become gainfully employed, or proof of actively getting some kind of education or training that can lead to future employment.

 

I am firmly against the "tax the rich" so that we can "redistribute it to the poor" idea.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

So the solution that does not involved throwing money at the problem is to, throw money at the problem? Only this time, money that ends up with for profit school systems?

 

Obviously, you fail to see the logic behind the idea.  Perhaps offering education vouchers is a better idea than offering welfare/food stamps.  Imagine if we did away with the useless Department of Education and used the cost savings to fund a school choice program.  Which would be better for the single mother and her child in the referenced scenario?  More money via welfare/food stamps, or money to put towards her child's education that has the potential to lift them out of poverty?

 

Liberals don't like "for profit school systems", yet that is the argument that they bring up all of the time.  Refer to the above posts regarding "equal opportunity".  A "rich" family can send their child to a private school, which is considered "better" than our public school system.  It is a "for profit school".  Why should a poor single mother not have the option to do the same with her child?  Isn't that "equal opportunity"?

 

By the way, just a small fact.  President Obama and his wife send their children to a private "for profit" school.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Obviously, you fail to see the logic behind the idea.  Perhaps offering education vouchers is a better idea than offering welfare/food stamps.  Imagine if we did away with the useless Department of Education and used the cost savings to fund a school choice program.  Which would be better for the single mother and her child in the referenced scenario?  More money via welfare/food stamps, or money to put towards her child's education that has the potential to lift them out of poverty?

 

Liberals don't like "for profit school systems", yet that is the argument that they bring up all of the time.  Refer to the above posts regarding "equal opportunity".  A "rich" family can send their child to a private school, which is considered "better" than our public school system.  It is a "for profit school".  Why should a poor single mother not have the option to do the same with her child?  Isn't that "equal opportunity"?

 

By the way, just a small fact.  President Obama and his wife send their children to a private "for profit" school.

 

No to a school choice program.


School Choice sounds like a good idea.  The problem is, it simply doesn't work.  Vouchers haven't proven to improve academic performance in the areas where they've been used.  It's basically nothing more than subsidizing private schools.  You also have many parents who won't choose schools based on academics, but based on religion or political beliefs.  Vouchers don't also really increase 'choice' because ultimately it's up to the private schools if they want to admit students or not.  You'll also have for-profit schools that put more money into marketing than education.  Much like we have with the college system.  In fact much of the student debt? Is owed to For-profit colleges.  And you know what else?  Those who attend for-profit colleges are also among the hardest places to get employment from afterwards.  


Not to mention it opens up more government control of the private schools, something I'm sure most conservatives wouldn't want.  And I wouldn't blame them.  


Of course Obama sends his kids to Private School.  Most politicians do.  A lot of wealthy people do in fact.  Personally I'd never send my kids to a private school, and I know others who feel the same.  Some of whom are well off.  That's why we'll probably never see much fixed in the way of public schools.  Politicians don't care because it doesn't effect them except when it comes to the polls.


In fact Obama sends his kids to a school that costs $29,000/year.  So I don't think Vouchers are really going to give everyone that 'equal opportunity' to send their kids to those schools.  And the schools themselves, again, do not have to accept students they don't want. 


Also, how is the mother on food stamps supposed to feed her child that's getting education choice?  Helping lift them out of poverty?  After several years, maybe.  Only once again, that's assuming that her child is accepted into a private school, and assuming that the voucher actually ends up improving their academics.  And then you have to have her pay for the other stuff that vouchers don't cover.


Wages have stagnated.  That's the real problem.  One that won't be addressed.  Trade deals like Obamatrade and NAFTA have not done anything to help matters, and in fact may have made them worse.  (Well Obamatrade would make things worse, so far it's not enacted yet) Our Middle Class used to be something to behold.  Now it's nowhere near that.  We need to return to a healthy middle class, rather than the weak middle class we have today.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

The deck is clearly stacked in the favor of those already wealthy to amass even more wealth at the expense of those that are not while at the same time limiting the barrier to entry in the wealth accumulation market. 

 

You do realize that you are "already wealthy", right? Globally you're a 1%er and the deck is stacked in your favor.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The voucher program just let's me as the parent select what school my tax dollars support. As it is I pay taxes for public school and then turn around and pay tuition for my kids to go to private school. I should at least have the choice of opting out of funding the public school system if I'm never going to use it.


I don't advocate government paying for private schools that would give them authority to chancre curriculum. I just want to be able to opt out of paying for public school so I can use MY money to pay for My kids education. It wouldn't be hard to do figure out what percent of my property taxes goes to the doe and give me that back at the end of the year. The public education system is a joke I'd never send them to a government brainwashing institutions.

---

They are a horrible thing when able bodied individuals collect money for doing nothing. No limits are set such a time frame, no incentive to get off of it. <del>Those </del> Far too many of those people on it have no self worth and little pride. Tell me how that is a good thing? Again, as I stated earlier I have no problem with workfare or even welfare it there are limits and incentives to get off of it. There are none however and what we have today is an absolute disgrace to the human spirit.

Which welfare are you talking about?

---