PDA

View Full Version : Equal Opportunity



Rusty Jones
07-22-2016, 12:16 AM
I'm not a supporter of "fairness" of outcome but I am a supporter of "fairness" of opportunity

This actually got me thinking about Bernie Sanders' push for free college during his campaign.

What if, instead, we start off every new adult with a large sum of money and they can what they want to do with it?

Say, for example, upon reaching the age of 18 AND graduating high school (no GEDs allowed, it HAS to be a high school diploma); everyone is issued a check for $100,000. With that money, they've got choices: they pay for college. They can purchase a house. They can start a business. Or... they can be an idiot, and blow it on cars, video games, and expensive shoes and clothes (they might be broke after they wasted they're money, but imagine enough idiots stimulating the economy pretty good by doing this).

So... the big question is this: how are we going to pay for this? Easy: we raise the retirement age for social security by five years. That, in itself would cover it for most people. Also, more people will die off before being able to draw social security, so there's more savings right there.

Here's more areas from where the money would come: for those that start business, they would be self-employed and many could also employ others. That's less money being spent on public assistance. For those that purchase a house; because they're not paying rent... if they're not working, they would qualify for less public assistance.

Also, the people who purchase the house and are working will have more disposable income to stimulate the economy with.

Other possible "rules" to this

-People born after a certain year would be subject to this. Anyone born before that can "opt in" by agreeing to delay drawing their Social Security by five years.
-To protect this money from greedy parents, an 18 year old can assign any or all of the money to a college, someone selling a home, or someone selling an established business; or any combination of three; before the remaining funds are paid to him or her.

So here we are: every 18 year old starts out with $100,000 in their hands.

How the rest of their lives go depends on what they do with it. But they all got the same amount, and are equally responsible for what they do with it.

Thoughts?

sandsjames
07-22-2016, 12:24 AM
In theory it sounds great. Here's the problem I see...I see a lot of 18 year old kids come through tech school. For most of them it's brand new to have a paycheck/income. What do they do with it? They buy $30,000 cars, $5k stereo systems for their dorm rooms, etc. It's extremely common and it happens with people of all backgrounds.

Ultimately, I think that those who would do good things with the money are going to do it anyway. As you said, this does give everyone a good jump and a great opportunity but do you think that means we still wouldn't have to support many of those who blow everything via social assistance as we do now? Would we just let those who blow it live on the streets?

It's an interesting idea, as far as opportunity, I just can't see the outcome being a lot different than we have now. However, the outcome also couldn't be worse...

I think we'd be better off if we took that same money you're talking about and put it into making neighborhoods safe so that kids could focus on more than just staying alive. I'm a firm believer that the stuff that happens before age 12, for a large majority of people, is what shapes their future.

garhkal
07-22-2016, 05:00 AM
So... the big question is this: how are we going to pay for this? Easy: we raise the retirement age for social security by five years. That, in itself would cover it for most people. Also, more people will die off before being able to draw social security, so there's more savings right there.

SO, take money from the pockets of those who HAVE worked their whole lives, and give it to people who have never worked a day and have not earned it? Seems like you would do well running for office under Hillary, with that sort of socialist, redistributing wealth mentality..

sandsjames
07-22-2016, 10:33 AM
SO, take money from the pockets of those who HAVE worked their whole lives, and give it to people who have never worked a day and have not earned it? Seems like you would do well running for office under Hillary, with that sort of socialist, redistributing wealth mentality..

This is money that's already being "redistributed". Thise example is simply another way of doing so, since the current way obviously isn't working.

Rusty Jones
07-22-2016, 11:35 AM
In theory it sounds great. Here's the problem I see...I see a lot of 18 year old kids come through tech school. For most of them it's brand new to have a paycheck/income. What do they do with it? They buy $30,000 cars, $5k stereo systems for their dorm rooms, etc. It's extremely common and it happens with people of all backgrounds.

Ultimately, I think that those who would do good things with the money are going to do it anyway. As you said, this does give everyone a good jump and a great opportunity but do you think that means we still wouldn't have to support many of those who blow everything via social assistance as we do now? Would we just let those who blow it live on the streets?

It's an interesting idea, as far as opportunity, I just can't see the outcome being a lot different than we have now. However, the outcome also couldn't be worse...

Like I said in the OP, this is going to happen and I realize that. If they don't want to use that money to put themselves in a better position as the money is intended for, then they at least helped the economy by pumping that money into it. Furthermore, his life may be shit after he blows that money... but guess what? He has no excuses and, furthermore, no one else is in a position to apologize for his position. He was given $100,000.


I think we'd be better off if we took that same money you're talking about and put it into making neighborhoods safe so that kids could focus on more than just staying alive. I'm a firm believer that the stuff that happens before age 12, for a large majority of people, is what shapes their future.

That's approach we've already been taking for decades, though. That's why I think it's time to try something else.

Rusty Jones
07-22-2016, 11:43 AM
SO, take money from the pockets of those who HAVE worked their whole lives, and give it to people who have never worked a day and have not earned it? Seems like you would do well running for office under Hillary, with that sort of socialist, redistributing wealth mentality..

Aaaaannnnnnndddddd..... I knew this was coming. And Clinton is not a socialist. That's why I was a Bernie Sanders supporter. Because Sanders IS a socialist.

Furthermore, I know of no socialist country that gives a large sum of money to those entering adulthood to start them off with.

By the way, you've been letting Republicans gas you up pretty good if you actually believe that you're rich enough to be on the losing end of wealth distribution.

If you had paid attention to what I said, this would be paid for by moving the retirement age for Social Security up by five years. In other words, these young 18 year olds would be paying for it themselves by not being able to draw full social security benefits until age 72, or reduced benefits at 67 (as opposed to the current ages of 67 and 62, respectively).

Mjölnir
07-22-2016, 12:20 PM
So here we are: every 18 year old starts out with $100,000 in their hands.

How the rest of their lives go depends on what they do with it. But they all got the same amount, and are equally responsible for what they do with it.

Thoughts?

Interesting idea, but the cost concerns me:

1. The average Social Security payment (2015) is $1180.00 per month, 60 months of that is $70,800.00. Understanding that dollar amounts could shift etc. but based on the OP, that is almost a $30k cost that isn't absorbed by reducing Social Security by 5 years.

2. Average life expectancy in the US is 78, people born after 1960 currently are not eligible for full Social Security (normal 'retirement') until age 67. The average American will pay $366k into Social Security in their lifetime and currently does not break even on it based on pulling out funds for 11 years; reducing eligibility (based on life expectancy) to 6 years is a significant disadvantage to the worker/taxpayer.

3. Social Security is already projected to be insolvent by 2024. It will not go completely broke, but will only be able to cover about 75-80% of benefits based on projected income from payroll withholdings and income taxes come 2024; taxes are already going to have to go up to sustain the benefits program.

Also, as was mentioned, I don't think too many 18-year olds are going to do much of value or significance with the money ... I wouldn't have.

I do think:


I think we'd be better off if we took that same money you're talking about and put it into making neighborhoods safe so that kids could focus on more than just staying alive. I'm a firm believer that the stuff that happens before age 12, for a large majority of people, is what shapes their future.

is a much better approach. Frankly, waiting until 18 to provide people 'opportunity' or life skills is far too late. We (US) have a problem with a the low income life cycle. Children born into low income families generally live in financially depressed areas, those areas generally have the worst schools. The children get a substandard education which exponentially decreases their chances of breaking the low income cycle they were born into. Combine that with poor graduation rates in high population density/low income urban areas (ie. Detroit 67%, Baltimore 41%, Atlanta 44%) and the statistical fact that a better education (high school or secondary) dramatically increases the chance to break the low income cycle ... out lack of attention on primary education is screwing the kids we should be helping the most.


This is money that's already being "redistributed". Thise example is simply another way of doing so, since the current way obviously isn't working.

True. This would however increase the distribution by taking approx. $70k from a Social Security beneficiary for the additional 5 years they are not eligible to receive benefits.


Like I said in the OP, this is going to happen and I realize that. If they don't want to use that money to put themselves in a better position as the money is intended for, then they at least helped the economy by pumping that money into it.

True, but that would be a short term effect vice a long term effect. Creating a more productive member of society who contributes to the GDP and the community would have a much further reaching impact.


Furthermore, his life may be shit after he blows that money... but guess what? He has no excuses and, furthermore, no one else is in a position to apologize for his position. He was given $100,000.

Agree, but you know there would be excuses, and if the individual didn't become productive they likely up on public assistance which if we (US) were to deny them, would further exacerbate the problem.

Rusty Jones
07-22-2016, 12:38 PM
There are other effects of raising the retirement age for social security that would make this more feasible. Consider the following:

1. Less people would live long enough to draw social security benefits in the first place. So if someone dies at the age of 66 - the year before they'd be able to draw reduced benefits under this hypothetical plan - some next of kin would only get a refund of the contributions.

2. Of the people who do live long enough to draw it, that's five years less that they'd be on it before they died.

Then, like I said before, here are other effects:

1. Someone wants to apply for public assistance, and they bought a home with their $100K. If I'm not mistaken, if you own a home with no mortgage, the fair market rental value of your home counts as monthly income for determining your benefits. That's less public assistance to be paid out.

2. For those who use that money to start a business, this should end the unemployment problem. With more people employed, there'd be less demand for public assistance.

I think this would also have the desired affect of helping communities the way SJ described. And not just poor communities, either. Go to Anytown, USA and look downtown; or any other part of the city with old storefronts... that look like they haven't been occupied since leisure suits were still in style. Imagine being able to finally fill those in with new business owners.

Rusty Jones
07-22-2016, 01:06 PM
Here's something else I'm thinking: eventually, free college for everyone IS coming. Sure, Bernie Sanders is finished; but with him out, the inevitable has merely been postponed.

But... not everyone wants to go to college. For those who choose not to go to college, why shouldn't they have a choice to get something else instead? Some people - probably even some (if not most) of you - believe that starting a business is a better investment than college; especially considering the fact that starting up a new business might cost about the same amount of money as a four-year degree... maybe even less, depending on the business you're starting up and which school you're comparing it too.

Some people might believe that starter home might be a better investment. If someone owns a home, and isn't paying rent or mortgage, then they might feel that the lack of that rent or mortgage offsets (or more than offsets) the higher pay that they'd be receiving from a job that would require a college degree.

College isn't for everyone, and those who don't want to go should be given other choices.

Mjölnir
07-22-2016, 01:10 PM
There are other effects of raising the retirement age for social security that would make this more feasible. Consider the following:

1. Less people would live long enough to draw social security benefits in the first place. So if someone dies at the age of 66 - the year before they'd be able to draw reduced benefits under this hypothetical plan - some next of kin would only get a refund of the contributions.

True. A counterpoint / add on to this would support the argument of abolishing Social Security to let people do with (and pass to their families) as they wish.


2. Of the people who do live long enough to draw it, that's five years less that they'd be on it before they died.

Correct, which is part of my resistance. It essentially turns into a larger redistribution of money by having people pay in more than they are getting back. Still, just based on the averages, the 5 years only gains $70,800, $29,200 short of $100k. Die off would 'help' (hate to use the word like that) ... but would it mitigate it enough? IDK.




Then, like I said before, here are other effects:

1. Someone wants to apply for public assistance, and they bought a home with their $100K. If I'm not mistaken, if you own a home with no mortgage, the fair market rental value of your home counts as monthly income for determining your benefits. That's less public assistance to be paid out.

Provided someone bought a home with it.


2. For those who use that money to start a business, this should end the unemployment problem. With more people employed, there'd be less demand for public assistance.

I don't know if it would 'solve' the problem. It may help the problem. Depends on the business. Are you talking service industry or small scale manufacturing etc.? How many new businesses last 1 year, 5 years etc.? Small business is the backbone of our economy, but it isn't easy by far.


I think this would also have the desired affect of helping communities the way SJ described. And not just poor communities, either. Go to Anytown, USA and look downtown; or any other part of the city with old storefronts... that look like they haven't been occupied since leisure suits were still in style. Imagine being able to finally fill those in with new business owners.

Again, not totally debunking the idea of the 'grant' ... I am sure there are people who would do good things with that money. I think that number would not be the majority ...

BTW ... when did leisure suits go out of style?!?!?!?!

Mjölnir
07-22-2016, 01:26 PM
Here's something else I'm thinking: eventually, free college for everyone IS coming. Sure, Bernie Sanders is finished; but with him out, the inevitable has merely been postponed.

But... not everyone wants to go to college. For those who choose not to go to college, why shouldn't they have a choice to get something else instead? Some people - probably even some (if not most) of you - believe that starting a business is a better investment than college; especially considering the fact that starting up a new business might cost about the same amount of money as a four-year degree... maybe even less, depending on the business you're starting up and which school you're comparing it too.

Some people might believe that starter home might be a better investment. If someone owns a home, and isn't paying rent or mortgage, then they might feel that the lack of that rent or mortgage offsets (or more than offsets) the higher pay that they'd be receiving from a job that would require a college degree.

College isn't for everyone, and those who don't want to go should be given other choices.

Dependent on the individual, a starter home may be the better investment. For others it may be college, for others a grant to start a business.

I do kind of fall in line with a thought that our system is really built for people to succeed, but you need the basic tools to succeed in the system. Is the best tool a thing (money, house, etc.) or is the best tool a basic education; I don't necessarily mean college but basic primary education that many low income communities lack. Giving an individual a starter home who lacks the skills (white collar, blue collar, service industry etc.) to maintain the home or a standard of living is setting them up to fail. Giving an individual a grant to start a business who lacks the ability to do the math to maintain payroll, project sales or taxes etc. is setting them up to fail.

I agree with your line of thinking that we need to help people, we disagree on where (in time) we need to help them. I am thinking further to the left of the timeline and would focus on a solid basic education vice a lump sum of cash or a house ... both of which are (statistically shown to be) much easier to obtain with a solid educational foundation.

Rusty Jones
07-22-2016, 01:47 PM
Right, but what about all of these people with four year degrees who can't find jobs? And I don't mean just people with psychology and criminal justice degrees; I mean in general. Yet, we're still talking about free four-year universities for everyone.

What I will admit is that compulsary education (i.e., K-12) would have to change; that's a no-brainer. Currently, it's specifically designed to prepare you for college or to enter the workforce directly; depending on which route you go when choosing courses in high school. There'd need to be a new route for those who want to start businesses.

For those who go the route of purchasing the home; we're talking about a home that costs $100K or less - in my area, you're only looking at about just over $1K a year in property taxes. Someone working full time at McDonald's can swing that. Which is far better than having to pay almost that same amount for rent every month.

sandsjames
07-22-2016, 02:10 PM
Here's something else I'm thinking: eventually, free college for everyone IS coming. Sure, Bernie Sanders is finished; but with him out, the inevitable has merely been postponed.

But... not everyone wants to go to college. For those who choose not to go to college, why shouldn't they have a choice to get something else instead? Some people - probably even some (if not most) of you - believe that starting a business is a better investment than college; especially considering the fact that starting up a new business might cost about the same amount of money as a four-year degree... maybe even less, depending on the business you're starting up and which school you're comparing it too.

Some people might believe that starter home might be a better investment. If someone owns a home, and isn't paying rent or mortgage, then they might feel that the lack of that rent or mortgage offsets (or more than offsets) the higher pay that they'd be receiving from a job that would require a college degree.

College isn't for everyone, and those who don't want to go should be given other choices.

I am a firm believer that college is a large scale scam and is not for everyone but I think that most people would fail if they started a business without some sort of training on how to run one.

The first fix, as you said, would be to change the school systems...not only with improvements to safety but with choices. The academic path isn't for everyone. Money needs to be put into all the stuff the country is getting rid of...the blue collar jobs...the skills to survive without college.

sandsjames
07-22-2016, 02:15 PM
For those who go the route of purchasing the home; we're talking about a home that costs $100K or less - in my area, you're only looking at about just over $1K a year in property taxes. Someone working full time at McDonald's can swing that. Which is far better than having to pay almost that same amount for rent every month.I have a feeling this would kill the real estate markets, creating huge ripple effects on the economy.

You can already see the effects around a military base, where the local market knows exactly how much people get for BAH.

Rusty Jones
07-22-2016, 02:21 PM
I have a feeling this would kill the real estate markets, creating huge ripple effects on the economy.

You can already see the effects around a military base, where the local market knows exactly how much people get for BAH.

Or maybe not. I can see builders constructing new condominium complexes and small homes in anticipation of all these 18 year olds getting $100K each at the end of every school year. That would be a good thing.

sandsjames
07-22-2016, 02:29 PM
Or maybe not. I can see builders constructing new condominium complexes and small homes in anticipation of all these 18 year olds getting $100K each at the end of every school year. That would be a good thing.

Basically you'd be getting college dorms with no rules. These condos would end up being slum areas. These kids aren't going to maintain their homes.

In an ideal world, with an assumption that everyone would make all the right moves, I could see it. Unfortunately, I think we'd end up right back where we are now.

Mjölnir
07-22-2016, 02:29 PM
Right, but what about all of these people with four year degrees who can't find jobs? And I don't mean just people with psychology and criminal justice degrees; I mean in general. Yet, we're still talking about free four-year universities for everyone.

There is an employment issue that is not necessarily reflected well in unemployment statistics. An individual with a 4 year degree who is not employable in their area of study but still employed (under-employed) isn't well reported. One of the problems with free college for everyone is that not everyone is truly qualified for higher education ... lacking the basic writing, math or critical thinking to meet a basic standard for undergrad work. Automatic free college potentially lowers the standard or puts those who are unqualified at a extreme risk to fail.

Concur that basic education should change, I don't think it is geared exclusively for college prep ... it can be ... but there are also ways that high school is currently providing occupational education along side college prep. I don't think everyone needs a college degree to find work, it may be a requirement (tangible or employer based to filter candidates) but there is a significant amount of work in the US that does not need a degree.


What I will admit is that compulsary education (i.e., K-12) would have to change; that's a no-brainer. Currently, it's specifically designed to prepare you for college or to enter the workforce directly; depending on which route you go when choosing courses in high school. There'd need to be a new route for those who want to start businesses.

My concern here is that a vocational prep track in high school may be too early. If a student at age 15 (10th grade) goes the vocational track, what happens when they change what they want to be doing at 19 or 20?

I am more in favor of providing a solid basic education that can feed into multiple occupational or educational tracks, but think that at 15 most 'kids' are not ready to decide what they want to do for the rest of their life.


For those who go the route of purchasing the home; we're talking about a home that costs $100K or less - in my area, you're only looking at about just over $1K a year in property taxes. Someone working full time at McDonald's can swing that. Which is far better than having to pay almost that same amount for rent every month.

In your area $100k would work, in my area not so much ... not for the purpose of what you are proposing. Also with home ownership is maintenance ... repairs of roofs, AC, other issues that someone working at McDonalds (what used to be a work force entry level position) likely could afford. Not hat the goal would be to provide everyone with 3000+ square feet, but to assume that home ownership is the best avenue for low income households may be a stretch. I would be more in favor of finding a way to help them transition from a minimum wage job at McDonalds to a middle class job where the ability to truly be able to own a home and afford it are realistic.

Mjölnir
07-22-2016, 02:31 PM
In an ideal world, with an assumption that everyone would make all the right moves, I could see it. Unfortunately, I think we'd end up right back where we are now.

This ... pretty much my concern too. We would be 'giving people fish' vice 'teaching them to fish'

SomeRandomGuy
07-22-2016, 02:47 PM
Rusty's idea is actually pretty close to the concept of "Basic Income" discussed here

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/universal-basic-income/

It's actually a really interesting concept. It costs a lot of money to administer federal programs like TANF, WIC, Medicaid, Section 8 housing, etc.

In some ways it would be smarter if we just gave the money directly to the people to spend however they like. I always hear people complaining about others using their EBT card to buy steak, lobster, etc. Why the fuck does it matter? The person gets a set amount for food. If they decide to be a dummy and buy the most expensive meals they will run out of money. It isn't your job to tell people how to budget their food stamps.

sandsjames
07-22-2016, 02:50 PM
My concern here is that a vocational prep track in high school may be too early. If a student at age 15 (10th grade) goes the vocational track, what happens when they change what they want to be doing at 19 or 20? Then they go to college and have a skill to fall back on. Right now people go to college with nothing to fall back on. I don't see a down side.


I am more in favor of providing a solid basic education that can feed into multiple occupational or educational tracks, but think that at 15 most 'kids' are not ready to decide what they want to do for the rest of their life. People in their 30s don't know what they want to do for the rest of their life. My step-son went to British schools when we were stationed in England. At age 16, they have the option of which path to take. It works out great, from our experience with it.




In your area $100k would work, in my area not so much ... not for the purpose of what you are proposing. Definitely a huge issue.

Rusty Jones
07-22-2016, 02:51 PM
There's a reason that I came up with what I came up with this idea. I have three children: two daughters, age 10 and 3; and a son who will be 10 months old in just over a week.

Would I like them to go to college if that's what they want to do? Of course. However, if they choose not to, I am willing to let them stay home rent-free (I will provide food, clothing, and allowances to them as I always have) as long as they are working full time and are setting aside 100% of their pay aside to purchase a home, condo, or business - which can be done in four years.

Think about this... as a parent, you can put your child through college. But, if given the choice to spend the same amount of money that you would have spent on college to start him or her off with a business or a home... would you choose different? I probably would.

sandsjames
07-22-2016, 02:52 PM
Rusty's idea is actually pretty close to the concept of "Basic Income" discussed here

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/universal-basic-income/

It's actually a really interesting concept. It costs a lot of money to administer federal programs like TANF, WIC, Medicaid, Section 8 housing, etc.

In some ways it would be smarter if we just gave the money directly to the people to spend however they like. I always hear people complaining about others using their EBT card to buy steak, lobster, etc. Why the fuck does it matter? The person gets a set amount for food. If they decide to be a dummy and buy the most expensive meals they will run out of money. It isn't your job to tell people how to budget their food stamps.

I also agree with the premise, but what happens when people blow that money and have nothing to show for it? Do we just let them live on the streets and be ok with it? You know that's not going to happen, so we end up still having to provide welfare as we are currently doing, plus giving up this lump sum ahead of time.

sandsjames
07-22-2016, 02:54 PM
There's a reason that I came up with what I came up with this idea. I have three children: two daughters, age 10 and 3; and a son who will be 10 months old in just over a week.

Would I like them to go to college if that's what they want to do? Of course. However, if they choose not to, I am willing to let them stay home rent-free (I will provide food, clothing, and allowances to them as I always have) as long as they are working full time and are setting aside 100% of their pay aside to purchase a home, condo, or business - which can be done in four years.

Think about this... as a parent, you can put your child through college. But, if given the choice to spend the same amount of money that you would have spent on college to start him or her off with a business or a home... would you choose different? I probably would.

You are including responsibility with your kids, though, and that's the difference. There is no way to expect the same amount of responsibility from everyone. That's an awesome idea for your children. Sounds like a great plan. But what you are suggesting is that we give out this money with no requirements (maintaining a full time job, putting money away for the future).

Mjölnir
07-22-2016, 02:57 PM
Then they go to college and have a skill to fall back on. Right now people go to college with nothing to fall back on. I don't see a down side.

My concern is that if someone went solely vocational, they may lack the basic academic requirement if they opted for college at 18, 19 or 25 etc. I agree that a vocation to fall back on is a really good idea ... I don't argue that college is for everyone, but don't know if this path would be shutting that door.


People in their 30s don't know what they want to do for the rest of their life. My step-son went to British schools when we were stationed in England. At age 16, they have the option of which path to take. It works out great, from our experience with it.

I am 43 and don't.

Mjölnir
07-22-2016, 03:01 PM
There's a reason that I came up with what I came up with this idea. I have three children: two daughters, age 10 and 3; and a son who will be 10 months old in just over a week.

Congrats on the new kid BTW ... you virile monster you.


Would I like them to go to college if that's what they want to do? Of course. However, if they choose not to, I am willing to let them stay home rent-free (I will provide food, clothing, and allowances to them as I always have) as long as they are working full time and are setting aside 100% of their pay aside to purchase a home, condo, or business - which can be done in four years.

Think about this... as a parent, you can put your child through college. But, if given the choice to spend the same amount of money that you would have spent on college to start him or her off with a business or a home... would you choose different? I probably would.

I think it would depend on what my kid wanted to do. A month ago she wanted to be a veterinarian ... yesterday she wanted to be a princess. But ... she is 5 and has time. There will come a point that there will be a discussion about what she wants to do and we plan on helping her no matter what she chooses ... if she changes her mind at 25 an no longer wants to be a [pick a job] and wants to be a [pick a job] then it may be up to her to make it happen ... don't really know.

sandsjames
07-22-2016, 03:01 PM
My concern is that if someone went solely vocational, they may lack the basic academic requirement if they opted for college at 18, 19 or 25 etc. I agree that a vocation to fall back on is a really good idea ... I don't argue that college is for everyone, but don't know if this path would be shutting that door. Shutting the door for who? Those who are dropping out their sophomore year because they already know that college isn't really an option?

I'm not sure if you remember back that far but there's not a whole lot of mandatory classes those last two years of high school. The basics are taught well before that. Grade 11/12 offer the more advanced stuff, generally. Different history classes, pre-calculus/calculus, etc...mostly stuff that isn't important unless you plan on going on to college anyway.

Rainmaker
07-22-2016, 03:32 PM
Aaaaannnnnnndddddd..... I knew this was coming. And Clinton is not a socialist.

True. The Hildabeast is a a Puppet of the transnational banking industry (which is largely run by and for the benefit of International Socialist dual passport holders). All the old guard establishment RINOs are the same.



Furthermore, I know of no socialist country that gives a large sum of money to those entering adulthood to start them off with.

The term in the banking industry for this (printing money and handing it directly to the citizens) to infuse cash into the system is called "Helicopter money".

It's been tried several times before throughout history with disastrous results most notably in the Weimer republic and Zimbabwe & most recently in Chavez's Socialist Utopia of Venezuela. Where inflation is currently running 720% and even though they have the largest proven oil reserves in the world, the country has descended into total chaos.

Of course this too gets minimal coverage in Amerikka because, they want the dumbed down average sheeple thinking stupid stuff like this could actually be a good idea.

Mjölnir
07-22-2016, 03:33 PM
Shutting the door for who? Those who are dropping out their sophomore year because they already no that college isn't really an option?

I'm not sure if you remember back that far but there's not a whole lot of mandatory classes those last two years of high school. The basics are taught well before that. Grade 11/12 offer the more advanced stuff, generally. Different history classes, pre-calculus/calculus, etc...mostly stuff that isn't important unless you plan on going on to college anyway.

Correct, and that is my point. A kid who decides to go the vocational track who only takes Algebra and maybe Geometry because they are going into a skilled trade who changes their mind on college a few years later will be at a disadvantage.

I was only required to take 2 years of HS math -- Algebra was in the 8th grade, so I took Geometry 9th and Algebra II in the 10th. I also took Trigonometry in the 11th and Calculus in the 12th. After one year of college (I took College Algebra with Trig 101 for a semester), I dropped out of college for about 5 or 6 years. Despite a really heavy concentration in math in HS, I had a really ... I mean REALLY hard time with the required math to finish a Bachelors (of Arts ... not a technical degree). My math had really degraded. How would it be for someone who didn't have the basics?

I think taking a kid who wants to go into a vocation and ignoring the basic common education in HS shuts the door to them going to college down the road. I am not talking putting them all through Calculus or Physics ... but the basics and then maintaining / reinforcing it so it sticks beyond their sophomore year of high school. I would prefer a mix of vocational / academics to allow options down the road.

Mjölnir
07-22-2016, 03:34 PM
Shutting the door for who? Those who are dropping out their sophomore year because they already no that college isn't really an option?

I'm not sure if you remember back that far but there's not a whole lot of mandatory classes those last two years of high school. The basics are taught well before that. Grade 11/12 offer the more advanced stuff, generally. Different history classes, pre-calculus/calculus, etc...mostly stuff that isn't important unless you plan on going on to college anyway.

Correct, and that is my point. A kid who decides to go the vocational track who only takes Algebra and maybe Geometry because they are going into a skilled trade who changes their mind on college a few years later will be at a disadvantage.

I was only required to take 2 years of HS math -- Algebra was in the 8th grade, so I took Geometry 9th and Algebra II in the 10th. I also took Trigonometry in the 11th and Calculus in the 12th. After one year of college (I took College Algebra with Trig 101 for a semester), I dropped out of college for about 5 or 6 years. Despite a really heavy concentration in math in HS, I had a really ... I mean REALLY hard time with the required math to finish a Bachelors (of Arts ... not a technical degree). My math had really degraded. How would it be for someone who didn't have the basics?

I think taking a kid who wants to go into a vocation and ignoring the basic common education in HS shuts the door to them going to college down the road. I am not talking putting them all through Calculus or Physics ... but the basics and then maintaining / reinforcing it so it sticks beyond their sophomore year of high school. I would prefer a mix of vocational / academics to allow options down the road.

sandsjames
07-22-2016, 03:43 PM
Correct, and that is my point. A kid who decides to go the vocational track who only takes Algebra and maybe Geometry because they are going into a skilled trade who changes their mind on college a few years later will be at a disadvantage.

I was only required to take 2 years of HS math -- Algebra was in the 8th grade, so I took Geometry 9th and Algebra II in the 10th. I also took Trigonometry in the 11th and Calculus in the 12th. After one year of college (I took College Algebra with Trig 101 for a semester), I dropped out of college for about 5 or 6 years. Despite a really heavy concentration in math in HS, I had a really ... I mean REALLY hard time with the required math to finish a Bachelors (of Arts ... not a technical degree). My math had really degraded. How would it be for someone who didn't have the basics?

I think taking a kid who wants to go into a vocation and ignoring the basic common education in HS shuts the door to them going to college down the road. I am not talking putting them all through Calculus or Physics ... but the basics and then maintaining / reinforcing it so it sticks beyond their sophomore year of high school. I would prefer a mix of vocational / academics to allow options down the road.

My point is that the basics are done by sophomore year anyway and those who are going to go the vocational route aren't going to be the ones who are going to be taking calculus (because it's optional) in the first place, so they aren't losing anything.

Rainmaker
07-22-2016, 04:11 PM
This is money that's already being "redistributed". Thise example is simply another way of doing so, since the current way obviously isn't working.

Public Service announcement: This is where the taxpayer money goes......


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luo40WjBKWI

garhkal
07-22-2016, 05:59 PM
This is money that's already being "redistributed". Thise example is simply another way of doing so, since the current way obviously isn't working.

So screw the old folk who worked to earn that.. just give it to the kids coming into adult hood..


Like I said in the OP, this is going to happen and I realize that. If they don't want to use that money to put themselves in a better position as the money is intended for, then they at least helped the economy by pumping that money into it. Furthermore, his life may be shit after he blows that money... but guess what? He has no excuses and, furthermore, no one else is in a position to apologize for his position. He was given $100,000.


I am sure there would become a bumper organization of lawyers who's sole purpose is to sue for those kids, to GET a 2nd chance and a 2nd handout...



If you had paid attention to what I said, this would be paid for by moving the retirement age for Social Security up by five years. In other words, these young 18 year olds would be paying for it themselves by not being able to draw full social security benefits until age 72, or reduced benefits at 67 (as opposed to the current ages of 67 and 62, respectively).

So as i said, screw the old fogies.. Doesn't matter that for many, THAT is their retirement.


is a much better approach. Frankly, waiting until 18 to provide people 'opportunity' or life skills is far too late. We (US) have a problem with a the low income life cycle. Children born into low income families generally live in financially depressed areas, those areas generally have the worst schools. The children get a substandard education which exponentially decreases their chances of breaking the low income cycle they were born into. Combine that with poor graduation rates in high population density/low income urban areas (ie. Detroit 67%, Baltimore 41%, Atlanta 44%) and the statistical fact that a better education (high school or secondary) dramatically increases the chance to break the low income cycle ... out lack of attention on primary education is screwing the kids we should be helping the most.


Between all the welfare/tax credits, school funding, after school programs etc, how much have we already tossed at this 'poverty issue' over the last 40+ years? And it just seems to get WORSE year after year, not better..
Throwing money is not doing a damn thing.


There are other effects of raising the retirement age for social security that would make this more feasible. Consider the following:

1. Less people would live long enough to draw social security benefits in the first place. So if someone dies at the age of 66 - the year before they'd be able to draw reduced benefits under this hypothetical plan - some next of kin would only get a refund of the contributions.

2. Of the people who do live long enough to draw it, that's five years less that they'd be on it before they died.

Then, like I said before, here are other effects:

Why then don't we just go all Logans run then, Kill everyone off when they HIT 65, that way they won't BE alive to bother drawing in social security, since it seems to me that is all you consider old folk, a burden on society.


2. For those who use that money to start a business, this should end the unemployment problem. With more people employed, there'd be less demand for public assistance.

It might HELP reduce it, but there would STILL be unemployment.. How many people would a person with just 100k be able to hire??


Here's something else I'm thinking: eventually, free college for everyone IS coming. Sure, Bernie Sanders is finished; but with him out, the inevitable has merely been postponed.

Its NOT free, if everyone else, especially the old folk, by having their Social security stolen to, pay for it..


For those who go the route of purchasing the home; we're talking about a home that costs $100K or less - in my area, you're only looking at about just over $1K a year in property taxes. Someone working full time at McDonald's can swing that. Which is far better than having to pay almost that same amount for rent every month.

And what of those who cause of WHERE they live, that 100k, won't even pay for a 300 squarefoot broom closet, or who have 3-5K a year in property taxes? Will THEY get a higher amount to cover the difference?


Basically you'd be getting college dorms with no rules. These condos would end up being slum areas. These kids aren't going to maintain their homes.

Very true SJ. Just look at the dilapidated nature of MANY areas that are 'section 8 housing'..


In your area $100k would work, in my area not so much ... not for the purpose of what you are proposing. Also with home ownership is maintenance ... repairs of roofs, AC, other issues that someone working at McDonalds (what used to be a work force entry level position) likely could afford. Not hat the goal would be to provide everyone with 3000+ square feet, but to assume that home ownership is the best avenue for low income households may be a stretch. I would be more in favor of finding a way to help them transition from a minimum wage job at McDonalds to a middle class job where the ability to truly be able to own a home and afford it are realistic.

Not just home ownership maintenance (power, water, cutting grass, maintaining the AC/Gutters etc), but you also have Homeowners insurance, flood/hail insurance for those in coastal areas, or near rivers etc.. Ar you gonig to give them more to help them cover THAT?
What of the stuff said new home owner would NEED to make that house livable, such as appliances, furniture, sheets etc?? Or is that up to THEM to get...


Rusty's idea is actually pretty close to the concept of "Basic Income" discussed here

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/universal-basic-income/

It's actually a really interesting concept. It costs a lot of money to administer federal programs like TANF, WIC, Medicaid, Section 8 housing, etc.

In some ways it would be smarter if we just gave the money directly to the people to spend however they like. I always hear people complaining about others using their EBT card to buy steak, lobster, etc. Why the fuck does it matter? The person gets a set amount for food. If they decide to be a dummy and buy the most expensive meals they will run out of money. It isn't your job to tell people how to budget their food stamps.

But then you get into issues where liberal activists Whine that "we need to help them out, cause they are out of cash, and thus need MORE money"..

Continued next post..

garhkal
07-22-2016, 06:14 PM
There's a reason that I came up with what I came up with this idea. I have three children: two daughters, age 10 and 3; and a son who will be 10 months old in just over a week.

Would I like them to go to college if that's what they want to do? Of course. However, if they choose not to, I am willing to let them stay home rent-free (I will provide food, clothing, and allowances to them as I always have) as long as they are working full time and are setting aside 100% of their pay aside to purchase a home, condo, or business - which can be done in four years.

Think about this... as a parent, you can put your child through college. But, if given the choice to spend the same amount of money that you would have spent on college to start him or her off with a business or a home... would you choose different? I probably would.

And as a parent, that's Your choice to make. However, foisting that idea on everyone ELSE< via telling people who worked all their lives, "sorry but you are going to have to either work longer, or stuck it up and wait longer before retiring and enjoying the benefits you slaved for, so SOD you old fogies, as we hope you don't live much longer anyway, so all the benefits we would have been paying you can now get redistributed", is NOT the way to go...



It's been tried several times before throughout history with disastrous results most notably in the Weimer republic and Zimbabwe & most recently in Chavez's Socialist Utopia of Venezuela. Where inflation is currently running 720% and even though they have the largest proven oil reserves in the world, the country has descended into total chaos.

Of course this too gets minimal coverage in Amerikka because, they want the dumbed down average sheeple thinking stupid stuff like this could actually be a good idea.

Yea, don't want those liberal dunces we are indoctrinating, actually see proof socialism is bad.

Rain.. I watched that "Its free, swipe you ebt" clip and had to laugh my ass off...

sandsjames
07-22-2016, 06:16 PM
Public Service announcement: This is where the taxpayer money goes......

191And here!...

Mjölnir
07-22-2016, 06:38 PM
191And here!...

http://www.timgaiser.com/uploads/3/6/1/7/3617558/3646697_orig.jpg

Rainmaker
07-22-2016, 07:05 PM
Rusty's idea is actually pretty close to the concept of "Basic Income" discussed here

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/universal-basic-income/

It's actually a really interesting concept.

Guaranteed minimum income is one of the stated objectives of the Cloward -Piven strategy being employed by the radical Marxist Trojan horses that aim to destroy our Constitutional Republic.

It Calls for Purposely organized chaos to collapse the socialist welfare system & take it to a full blown communist system. It was taken right out of Stalinist Russia's playbook

Rusty Jones
07-22-2016, 07:10 PM
Guaranteed minimum income is one of the stated objectives of the Cloward -Piven strategy being employed by the radical Marxist Trojan horses that aim to destroy our Constitutional Republic. It Calls for Purposely organized chaos to collapse the socialist welfare system & take it to a full blown communist system.

Actually, it's the Libertarians that have been pushing for it. They believe that it reduces the bureaucracy and that it will be grounds for abolishing the minimum wage.

Rainmaker
07-22-2016, 07:15 PM
Actually, it's the Libertarians that have been pushing for it. They believe that it reduces the bureaucracy and that it will be grounds for abolishing the minimum wage.

Libertarians? Oh you must mean the "constitutional purists"? The guys smoking pot, and running around in their underwear at their convention and ranting about the Founding Father's intent , while our country gets overrun by Hundreds of thousands of Non-white Foreign Nationals each year and turned into a Banana Republic? Those guys? Yeah... okay.... Guess what? The libertarian party's been hijacked too. Party affiliations really mean nothing now.

Rusty Jones
07-22-2016, 07:31 PM
So screw the old folk who worked to earn that.. just give it to the kids coming into adult hood..

So as i said, screw the old fogies.. Doesn't matter that for many, THAT is their retirement.

Its NOT free, if everyone else, especially the old folk, by having their Social security stolen to, pay for it..

You clearly haven't paid attention to anything I've said.


I am sure there would become a bumper organization of lawyers who's sole purpose is to sue for those kids, to GET a 2nd chance and a 2nd handout...

A meaningless and horrible attempt at a slippery slope.


Why then don't we just go all Logans run then, Kill everyone off when they HIT 65, that way they won't BE alive to bother drawing in social security, since it seems to me that is all you consider old folk, a burden on society.

This shows your frustration with what I'm saying, but no effort to refute it.


It might HELP reduce it, but there would STILL be unemployment.. How many people would a person with just 100k be able to hire??

I never said it would eliminate unemployment. BTW, a coworker of mine from a pizza restaurant I delivered for bought the restaurant. He has to pay on it for six years, but he bought it for $85,000. When I left, there were normally about five employees on shift at any given time.


And what of those who cause of WHERE they live, that 100k, won't even pay for a 300 squarefoot broom closet, or who have 3-5K a year in property taxes? Will THEY get a higher amount to cover the difference?

They could always go to college, start a business, or move...


Very true SJ. Just look at the dilapidated nature of MANY areas that are 'section 8 housing'..

There are totally different reasons for that.


Not just home ownership maintenance (power, water, cutting grass, maintaining the AC/Gutters etc), but you also have Homeowners insurance, flood/hail insurance for those in coastal areas, or near rivers etc.. Ar you gonig to give them more to help them cover THAT?
What of the stuff said new home owner would NEED to make that house livable, such as appliances, furniture, sheets etc?? Or is that up to THEM to get...

Who says they have to spend all $100K on the house? Hell, if someone can find a college where it costs $50,000 to finish a four year degree and can start a business with the other $50,000; then they can do that too. There are condos here in Norfolk as low as $30,000 and you can get a GOOD one for around $60,000. That leaves $40,000 for them to buy household goods; if that's what they want to do.


And as a parent, that's Your choice to make. However, foisting that idea on everyone ELSE< via telling people who worked all their lives, "sorry but you are going to have to either work longer, or stuck it up and wait longer before retiring and enjoying the benefits you slaved for, so SOD you old fogies, as we hope you don't live much longer anyway, so all the benefits we would have been paying you can now get redistributed", is NOT the way to go...

Here's an example of you not paying attention to what I've said. I explicitly stated that this would only apply to people born after a certain year. Anyone born before that would still be able to draw social security at the current retirement ages. UNLESS they want to opt in, and get the $100,000 themselves; and then delay their own retirement age.

Fucking pay attention.

Or how about this: stick to letting WJ5 do the talking, and THEN you can come in and voice your agreement with him.

garhkal
07-22-2016, 11:46 PM
191And here!...

And how do you now he didn't buy that with his own money vice had the gubmint pay for it??


You clearly haven't paid attention to anything I've said.


And exactly how else am i to take it when you say "Make the old people wait 5 more years till they can start receiving what they earned, so we can take that money to give to others.. Oh yea, lets hope they die early so they don't even get to that age'... and the like.


This shows your frustration with what I'm saying, but no effort to refute it.


Cause there's nothing to refute. ITs liberal nonsense. More robbing Peter to pay Paul stupidity.


Who says they have to spend all $100K on the house? Hell, if someone can find a college where it costs $50,000 to finish a four year degree and can start a business with the other $50,000; then they can do that too. There are condos here in Norfolk as low as $30,000 and you can get a GOOD one for around $60,000. That leaves $40,000 for them to buy household goods; if that's what they want to do.


And what if they don't want to live/move to the district of virginia..

sandsjames
07-23-2016, 12:21 AM
And how do you now he didn't buy that with his own money vice had the gubmint pay for it?? He's standing in the road eating it while on duty and, since he gets paid with taxpayer money, he should be working, not eating. That's taxpayer money spent on a sugary snack.

garhkal
07-23-2016, 06:53 AM
He's standing in the road eating it while on duty and, since he gets paid with taxpayer money, he should be working, not eating. That's taxpayer money spent on a sugary snack.

You DO realize cops when on duty DO get meal breaks like every OTHER profession working more than a 4 hr shift do...

Rusty Jones
07-23-2016, 11:39 AM
And how do you now he didn't buy that with his own money vice had the gubmint pay for it??

He means standing around and eating while still on the clock, and not during a designated lunch break. Furthermore, even if this was a desigated lunch break; this looks unprofessional as hell.


And exactly how else am i to take it when you say "Make the old people wait 5 more years till they can start receiving what they earned, so we can take that money to give to others.. Oh yea, lets hope they die early so they don't even get to that age'... and the like.

Look, I know you're a fucking cretin with the attention span of goldfish; so I'm gonna help you out:

Here's an example of you not paying attention to what I've said. I explicitly stated that this would only apply to people born after a certain year. Anyone born before that would still be able to draw social security at the current retirement ages. UNLESS they want to opt in, and get the $100,000 themselves; and then delay their own retirement age.

Fucking pay attention.

Here's an example of you not paying attention to what I've said. I explicitly stated that this would only apply to people born after a certain year. Anyone born before that would still be able to draw social security at the current retirement ages. UNLESS they want to opt in, and get the $100,000 themselves; and then delay their own retirement age.

Fucking pay attention.

Here's an example of you not paying attention to what I've said. I explicitly stated that this would only apply to people born after a certain year. Anyone born before that would still be able to draw social security at the current retirement ages. UNLESS they want to opt in, and get the $100,000 themselves; and then delay their own retirement age.

Fucking pay attention.

Here's an example of you not paying attention to what I've said. I explicitly stated that this would only apply to people born after a certain year. Anyone born before that would still be able to draw social security at the current retirement ages. UNLESS they want to opt in, and get the $100,000 themselves; and then delay their own retirement age.

Fucking pay attention.

Here's an example of you not paying attention to what I've said. I explicitly stated that this would only apply to people born after a certain year. Anyone born before that would still be able to draw social security at the current retirement ages. UNLESS they want to opt in, and get the $100,000 themselves; and then delay their own retirement age.

Fucking pay attention.

Here's an example of you not paying attention to what I've said. I explicitly stated that this would only apply to people born after a certain year. Anyone born before that would still be able to draw social security at the current retirement ages. UNLESS they want to opt in, and get the $100,000 themselves; and then delay their own retirement age.

Fucking pay attention.

Here's an example of you not paying attention to what I've said. I explicitly stated that this would only apply to people born after a certain year. Anyone born before that would still be able to draw social security at the current retirement ages. UNLESS they want to opt in, and get the $100,000 themselves; and then delay their own retirement age.

Fucking pay attention.


Cause there's nothing to refute. ITs liberal nonsense. More robbing Peter to pay Paul stupidity.

More like you lack the mental capacity.


And what if they don't want to live/move to the district of virginia..

No one said they had to.

sandsjames
07-23-2016, 12:01 PM
You DO realize cops when on duty DO get meal breaks like every OTHER profession working more than a 4 hr shift do...

He's wasting taxpayer dollars. Does anybody care? Nope, because it's widely accepted, just like it's widely accepted for Airmen to go get their hair cut during the duty day. It's wasting taxpayer dollars. It's no different that buying lottery tickets on an EBT card when it comes to dollars wasted.

Rusty Jones
07-23-2016, 01:20 PM
He's wasting taxpayer dollars. Does anybody care? Nope, because it's widely accepted, just like it's widely accepted for Airmen to go get their hair cut during the duty day. It's wasting taxpayer dollars. It's no different that buying lottery tickets on an EBT card when it comes to dollars wasted.

I know that police officers are above the law, the rules, or standards of professional conduct and everything like that; but I really wish they wouldn't showcase that to the public. If they want to eat sandwich outside of a lunch break, then they could at least stop their car behind a bush and pretend that they're looking for speeders when, in reality, they're sitting in their car and eating.

garhkal
07-23-2016, 08:51 PM
He's wasting taxpayer dollars. Does anybody care? Nope, because it's widely accepted, just like it's widely accepted for Airmen to go get their hair cut during the duty day. It's wasting taxpayer dollars. It's no different that buying lottery tickets on an EBT card when it comes to dollars wasted.

SJ, how the heck is he wasting tax payer dollars?? He is getting his paycheck, and spending that on LUNCH during scheduled breaks. OR should cops IYO NOT get fucking breaks and have to bring food in, so they don't waste their paycheck?

sandsjames
07-23-2016, 09:00 PM
SJ, how the heck is he wasting tax payer dollars?? He is getting his paycheck, and spending that on LUNCH during scheduled breaks. OR should cops IYO NOT get fucking breaks and have to bring food in, so they don't waste their paycheck?Do you know he's on a scheduled break? You've never seen a cop, or a military member, wasting taxpayer dollars? I'm sure you have and, I'll assume that since you are so worried about where taxpayer dollars go that you reported it.

garhkal
07-24-2016, 01:24 AM
Do you know he's on a scheduled break? You've never seen a cop, or a military member, wasting taxpayer dollars? I'm sure you have and, I'll assume that since you are so worried about where taxpayer dollars go that you reported it.

Yes i have, and FWA forms got filled out. Never did i get any response though...

Rusty Jones
07-24-2016, 01:27 AM
Yes i have, and FWA forms got filled out. Never did i get any response though...

In other words, MTF isn't the only place where everyone who comes into contact with you thinks you're an imbecile.

garhkal
07-24-2016, 05:22 AM
So now i am an imbecile for reporting someone's fraud or waste? Do you just sit in a basement somewhere, dreaming up insults to hurl at everyone who doesn't bow down to your point of view dude?

Rusty Jones
07-24-2016, 11:59 AM
So now i am an imbecile for reporting someone's fraud or waste? Do you just sit in a basement somewhere, dreaming up insults to hurl at everyone who doesn't bow down to your point of view dude?

No, I'm just saying that whoever saw the reports that you filed probably laughed while balling them up and throwing them in the trash.

sandsjames
07-24-2016, 03:08 PM
No, I'm just saying that whoever saw the reports that you filed probably laughed while balling them up and throwing them in the trash.

I'm sure you're just playing his game but, we both know, he's never filed a single FWA report in his life. He doesn't care about tax dollars being wasted. He only gets pissed when black people don't spend their money the way he thinks they should.

Those of you complaining about EBT, you realize that no matter what it's spent on, the people still get the same amount, right? It's not going to change how much tax you pay and it's not going to change how "your" tax money is distributed.

garhkal
07-24-2016, 09:18 PM
I'm sure you're just playing his game but, we both know, he's never filed a single FWA report in his life. He doesn't care about tax dollars being wasted. He only gets pissed when black people don't spend their money the way he thinks they should.

So you are calling me both a liar and a racist/.. Congradulations, you are now added to my blocked list.

sandsjames
07-24-2016, 11:57 PM
So you are calling me both a liar and a racist/.. Congradulations, you are now added to my blocked list.

No...please...don't.........what a shame.

Rusty Jones
07-25-2016, 01:54 AM
No...please...don't.........what a shame.

He didn't block you. I can count on both hands the number of times he's said the same thing to me.

sandsjames
07-25-2016, 10:32 AM
He didn't block you. I can count on both hands the number of times he's said the same thing to me.

I like how he says it, though, as if it somehow changes things here.

Mjölnir
07-25-2016, 12:18 PM
Anytime you gentlemen want to stop making every topic a personal back and forth pissing contest and discuss the topic would be great.

sandsjames
07-25-2016, 12:30 PM
Anytime you gentlemen want to stop making every topic a personal back and forth pissing contest and discuss the topic would be great.


Sorry...I'll be sure to start using racist terms in my posts so that it looks like I'm posting on topic.

Mjölnir
07-25-2016, 12:33 PM
Sorry...I'll be sure to start using racist terms in my posts so that it looks like I'm posting on topic.

If that is what you think the issue is, this is no longer the place for you friend.

WILDJOKER5
07-25-2016, 01:15 PM
This actually got me thinking about Bernie Sanders' push for free college during his campaign.

What if, instead, we start off every new adult with a large sum of money and they can what they want to do with it?Does that mean those who already have money get this "large sum" on top of what their parents will give them?


Say, for example, upon reaching the age of 18 AND graduating high school (no GEDs allowed, it HAS to be a high school diploma); everyone is issued a check for $100,000. With that money, they've got choices: they pay for college. They can purchase a house. They can start a business. Or... they can be an idiot, and blow it on cars, video games, and expensive shoes and clothes (they might be broke after they wasted they're money, but imagine enough idiots stimulating the economy pretty good by doing this).These people already exist, getting free money year after year, and its been well above $100k. They are called poor people who stay poor.


So... the big question is this: how are we going to pay for this? Easy: we raise the retirement age for social security by five years. That, in itself would cover it for most people. Also, more people will die off before being able to draw social security, so there's more savings right there.So more stealing of productive people's money. Instead of them keeping what they earned and saving for their own retirement and if they die before hand having it pass to their kids, nah, just give it to unproductive people who've contributed nothing towards this fund.


Here's more areas from where the money would come: for those that start business, they would be self-employed and many could also employ others. That's less money being spent on public assistance. For those that purchase a house; because they're not paying rent... if they're not working, they would qualify for less public assistance. You don't understand that you are trading one public assistance for another right? What about the taxes and the insurance, who will pay for them? What if people don't want just a $100k home, what if they want more? Plus, people don't take care of what they don't earn. Its very simple fact of life, if you don't earn something, you don't give a shit of the condition you leave it in.


Also, the people who purchase the house and are working will have more disposable income to stimulate the economy with.That's a pretty big "if". How about those who live in section 8, do they work? Does that stimulate the economy much?


Other possible "rules" to this

-People born after a certain year would be subject to this. Anyone born before that can "opt in" by agreeing to delay drawing their Social Security by five years.I wish they would put an "opt in" clause, but you know the government will never do something like this cause its either all or none, just like current SS, mail service, public schools, amtrack, etc.


-To protect this money from greedy parents, an 18 year old can assign any or all of the money to a college, someone selling a home, or someone selling an established business; or any combination of three; before the remaining funds are paid to him or her.Cause an 18 yo is more responsible than adults.


So here we are: every 18 year old starts out with $100,000 in their hands.

How the rest of their lives go depends on what they do with it. But they all got the same amount, and are equally responsible for what they do with it.

Thoughts?
Again, will you keep the rich parents from giving more to their kids? Basically, everyone starts off with the same amount already...$0. The 3 simple steps of making it to at least middle class are 1), Graduate high-school. 2) Work 40 hrs a week. 3) Be married before you have kids. This works for every race, class, gender, sexual preference, everyone. I guess also to caveat those steps is to mention that you shouldn't be breaking the law before graduating school so your record doesn't hinder the hiring process.

WILDJOKER5
07-25-2016, 01:19 PM
This is money that's already being "redistributed". Thise example is simply another way of doing so, since the current way obviously isn't working.

Or...how about we stop redistributing other people's money? Since we have seen socialism fail everywhere, maybe we stop trying it. Socialism is for the people, not the socialist. The Clintons drop everything they get "paid" into their "charity" organization, and then turn around and pay for everything through their foundation. This gives them a huge tax break, and they don't have to redistribute their own wealth while claiming they are "dead broke" while owning 5 multi-million dollar homes.

WILDJOKER5
07-25-2016, 01:26 PM
Like I said in the OP, this is going to happen and I realize that. If they don't want to use that money to put themselves in a better position as the money is intended for, then they at least helped the economy by pumping that money into it. Furthermore, his life may be shit after he blows that money... but guess what? He has no excuses and, furthermore, no one else is in a position to apologize for his position. He was given $100,000.You do understand by the time a kid is 18, he has already had over $100k spent on him through government redistribution right? And he is given the tools to survive already. Why give him another $100k in his hands to just waste? It wont help the economy when he cant pay the taxes or insurance on the house he bought. The prices for homes will go up. He probably will try to get more than a $100k home and then not afford that mortgage. Then you have a bigger problem of foreclosed homes than in 2008. Government policies always come with more unintended consequences than they come with positive outcomes. Name one government policy, especially in the past 60 years, that has actually benefitted the country.


That's approach we've already been taking for decades, though. That's why I think it's time to try something else.
Like NOT redistributing other people's money? Lest try that.

Rusty Jones
07-25-2016, 02:27 PM
If that is what you think the issue is, this is no longer the place for you friend.

Funny, because all the shit that Rainmaker says would make it look like that's EXACTLY what the issue is to anyone who anyone looking at this forum for the first time. Then, there are the people who hide behind Rainmaker with "liking" and "thanking" his posts; because they agree with what he's saying but don't have the balls to say it themselves - like garhkal, WJ5, and USN-Retired.

Mjölnir
07-25-2016, 02:45 PM
Funny, because all the shit that Rainmaker says would make it look like that's EXACTLY what the issue is to anyone who anyone looking at this forum for the first time. Then, there are the people who hide behind Rainmaker with "liking" and "thanking" his posts; because they agree with what he's saying but don't have the balls to say it themselves - like garhkal, WJ5, and USN-Retired.

I think people looking at the forum for the first time would see a lot of things ... not really much of it good ... I am tired of the bullshit.

You guys agreed to the terms when you joined, adhere to them. If grown adults can't exchange points without making it personal and derailing every topic with the same old shit ... regardless of who it is ... at this point I will just turn the place into a ghost town.

WILDJOKER5
07-25-2016, 03:04 PM
Here's something else I'm thinking: eventually, free college for everyone IS coming. Sure, Bernie Sanders is finished; but with him out, the inevitable has merely been postponed.Why? So we can have a larger drop out rate in college than there already is? Look at what people do with "free" high school.


But... not everyone wants to go to college. For those who choose not to go to college, why shouldn't they have a choice to get something else instead? Some people - probably even some (if not most) of you - believe that starting a business is a better investment than college; especially considering the fact that starting up a new business might cost about the same amount of money as a four-year degree... maybe even less, depending on the business you're starting up and which school you're comparing it too.How long till the government makes it mandatory that everyone goes to college like they did with high school? Ever see the Futurama episode where Fry was told that a college drop out in 2000 is like a high school drop out in 3000? Yeah, life shouldn't imamate art.


Some people might believe that starter home might be a better investment. If someone owns a home, and isn't paying rent or mortgage, then they might feel that the lack of that rent or mortgage offsets (or more than offsets) the higher pay that they'd be receiving from a job that would require a college degree.But whos to say people will just stop at $100k homes?


College isn't for everyone, and those who don't want to go should be given other choices.
High school isn't for everyone, but the government still makes it mandatory.

WILDJOKER5
07-25-2016, 03:08 PM
Rusty's idea is actually pretty close to the concept of "Basic Income" discussed here

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/universal-basic-income/

It's actually a really interesting concept. It costs a lot of money to administer federal programs like TANF, WIC, Medicaid, Section 8 housing, etc.

In some ways it would be smarter if we just gave the money directly to the people to spend however they like. I always hear people complaining about others using their EBT card to buy steak, lobster, etc. Why the fuck does it matter? The person gets a set amount for food. If they decide to be a dummy and buy the most expensive meals they will run out of money. It isn't your job to tell people how to budget their food stamps.

I am in favor of letting the people who earned the money keep it instead of redistribution to those who haven't earned anything.

WILDJOKER5
07-25-2016, 03:15 PM
Would I like them to go to college if that's what they want to do? Of course. However, if they choose not to, I am willing to let them stay home rent-free (I will provide food, clothing, and allowances to them as I always have) as long as they are working full time and are setting aside 100% of their pay aside to purchase a home, condo, or business - which can be done in four years.So you will dictate what your kids will do with their money? How will you prove they put away 100% of their min wage jobs into savings? Why are you going to keep them from having any type of fun since they will have zero disposable income? Seems pretty tyrannical to me, why not just let them stay with you rent free for life instead of this idea of giving them $100k of my money?


Think about this... as a parent, you can put your child through college. But, if given the choice to spend the same amount of money that you would have spent on college to start him or her off with a business or a home... would you choose different? I probably would.
I will not pay for my kids to go to college. Way too many ways for them to pay for college on their own. Military, academic scholarships, minority scholarships, etc. They don't need to rack up huge debts at big colleges when they can go to community college for much less. If you haven't learned, people appreciate what they have worked for more than what they are given.

USN - Retired
07-25-2016, 03:18 PM
I think people looking at the forum for the first time would see a lot of things ... not really much of it good ... I am tired of the bullshit.

You guys agreed to the terms when you joined, adhere to them. If grown adults can't exchange points without making it personal and derailing every topic with the same old shit ... regardless of who it is ... at this point I will just turn the place into a ghost town.

Let's see if you will "walk the talk". From this point forward, you should ban anyone who makes a personal attack of another member, no matter how slight the personal attack is. It should be a rule of the forum: we are not allowed to say ANYTHING negative about another member.

http://www.adhq.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/Homepage_slideshow_520x295/walk-the-talk-notag.jpg

Mjölnir
07-25-2016, 03:32 PM
Let's see if you will "walk the talk". From this point forward, you should ban anyone who makes a personal attack of another member, no matter how slight the personal attack is. It should be a rule of the forum: we are not allowed to say ANYTHING negative about another member.


Observations are not necessarily negative not an attack. I'm not saying everyone has to get along, I really don't think that's going to happen.

Read the guidelines, adhere to guidelines or just find somewhere else on the vast Internet to post, if you can't I'll revoke posting privileges.

USN - Retired
07-25-2016, 03:45 PM
Observations are not necessarily negative not an attack. I'm not saying everyone has to get along, I really don't think that's going to happen.

Read the guidelines, adhere to guidelines or just find somewhere else on the vast Internet to post, if you can't I'll revoke posting privileges.

Let's take a look at a recent post by RJ...


In other words, MTF isn't the only place where everyone who comes into contact with you thinks you're an imbecile.

So,... is that post by RJ a "personal attack" or is it just an "observation"? It looks like a personal attack.

Rainmaker
07-25-2016, 03:51 PM
Jeez. We're in the politics section, and the moderator's letting us talk. Stop crying racist all the time, whenever you don't get your way. What a Bunch of whiners and complainers. How in the hell did you guys ever make it in the military, with such thin skin?

WILDJOKER5
07-25-2016, 04:50 PM
Jeez. We're in the politics section, and the moderator's letting us talk. Stop crying racist all the time, whenever you don't get your way. What a Bunch of whiners and complainers. How in the hell did you guys ever make it in the military, with such thin skin?

Its the default setting for anyone who is a socialist. Its why "PC" was created so you can shut down the conversation when people start using facts, common sense, and stats. Not to mention people living in the real world with experience knows socialism doesn't work. People use "racists" as a form of PC control to push white guilt on to those who shine a bad light on to minority short comings. When was the last time you were called racist for speaking towards Asian positive stereo types?

garhkal
07-25-2016, 07:14 PM
If that is what you think the issue is, this is no longer the place for you friend.

And he wonders why i finally had enough and blocked both him and rusty!.


Or...how about we stop redistributing other people's money? Since we have seen socialism fail everywhere, maybe we stop trying it. Socialism is for the people, not the socialist. The Clintons drop everything they get "paid" into their "charity" organization, and then turn around and pay for everything through their foundation. This gives them a huge tax break, and they don't have to redistribute their own wealth while claiming they are "dead broke" while owning 5 multi-million dollar homes.

Well said WJ. We have spend billions of tax victims money in redistribution of wealth programs, such as the massively failed 'war on poverty and drugs'.. And there are more people in poverty now than before we started 'fighting it'.



High school isn't for everyone, but the government still makes it mandatory.

Even to the point those who homeschool their kids, are getting cramped down on, making it harder and harder to keep doing so.. PLUS those parent(s) who do homeschool, still pay for every one else's kid going to public schools.. IMO if you home school or DON'T have kids, you shouldn't have to pay for public schools..

sandsjames
07-25-2016, 08:28 PM
Well said WJ. We have spend billions of tax victims money in redistribution of wealth programs, such as the massively failed 'war on poverty and drugs'.. And there are more people in poverty now than before we started 'fighting it'. Are you sure you wanted to say this? This is a pretty liberal point of view. As a matter of fact, this is what liberals have been saying for years and years.

Bos Mutus
07-26-2016, 01:07 AM
This actually got me thinking about Bernie Sanders' push for free college during his campaign.

What if, instead, we start off every new adult with a large sum of money and they can what they want to do with it?

Say, for example, upon reaching the age of 18 AND graduating high school (no GEDs allowed, it HAS to be a high school diploma); everyone is issued a check for $100,000. With that money, they've got choices: they pay for college. They can purchase a house. They can start a business. Or... they can be an idiot, and blow it on cars, video games, and expensive shoes and clothes (they might be broke after they wasted they're money, but imagine enough idiots stimulating the economy pretty good by doing this).

So... the big question is this: how are we going to pay for this? Easy: we raise the retirement age for social security by five years. That, in itself would cover it for most people. Also, more people will die off before being able to draw social security, so there's more savings right there.

Here's more areas from where the money would come: for those that start business, they would be self-employed and many could also employ others. That's less money being spent on public assistance. For those that purchase a house; because they're not paying rent... if they're not working, they would qualify for less public assistance.

Also, the people who purchase the house and are working will have more disposable income to stimulate the economy with.

Other possible "rules" to this

-People born after a certain year would be subject to this. Anyone born before that can "opt in" by agreeing to delay drawing their Social Security by five years.
-To protect this money from greedy parents, an 18 year old can assign any or all of the money to a college, someone selling a home, or someone selling an established business; or any combination of three; before the remaining funds are paid to him or her.

So here we are: every 18 year old starts out with $100,000 in their hands.

How the rest of their lives go depends on what they do with it. But they all got the same amount, and are equally responsible for what they do with it.

Thoughts?

I don't like it.

For one...if every 18 year old had $100,000...then community colleges would suddenly cost $100,000.

I don't think we can make everybody equal...for those with the means will always try to gain an advantage, myself included. If our kids got $100K...then we would send them to the "better" $200K schools, so that they would have an advantage in life.

Most of us want our kids to have advantages in life...that is why we make choices to live where the better schools are even if it costs more, etc.

WILDJOKER5
07-28-2016, 11:22 AM
Are you sure you wanted to say this? This is a pretty liberal point of view. As a matter of fact, this is what liberals have been saying for years and years.

War on drugs maybe, but war on poverty is the way liberals keep their black voting demographic by demonizing the right for wanting to take it away.

WILDJOKER5
07-28-2016, 11:23 AM
Are you sure you wanted to say this? This is a pretty liberal point of view. As a matter of fact, this is what liberals have been saying for years and years.

War on drugs maybe, but war on poverty is the way liberals keep their black voting demographic by demonizing the right for wanting to take it away.

Rusty Jones
07-28-2016, 12:24 PM
War on drugs maybe, but war on poverty is the way liberals keep their black voting demographic by demonizing the right for wanting to take it away.

More often than not, black people aren't voting FOR Democrats. They're simply voting AGAINST Republicans. And it isn't even limited to race. Look at this election. Do you think everyone voting for Clinton is really voting FOR her? Of course not. Many, if not most, are simply voting AGAINST Trump. Look at SJ, for example.

The Republicans don't get black votes because they don't court them. That's part of the Southern Strategy.

WILDJOKER5
07-28-2016, 12:38 PM
More often than not, black people aren't voting FOR Democrats. They're simply voting AGAINST Republicans. And it isn't even limited to race. Look at this election. Do you think everyone voting for Clinton is really voting FOR her? Of course not. Many, if not most, are simply voting AGAINST Trump. Look at SJ, for example.

The Republicans don't get black votes because they don't court them. That's part of the Southern Strategy.

That's what I just said. The dems demonize the right by saying they want to take away black people's welfare. So that means blacks vote against the right to keep their handouts.

BTW, no political party should be "courting" a specific race. That's what we call biased. When you make laws for everyone, that everyone can follow, and everyone has the same chance of doing, that's called equality. You love the left cause they segregate you and your race while actually doing nothing for you. Blacks have had it worse under Obama and every single democrat mayor. But hey, at least they promise you stuff, you just don't actually get anything. So, for 50 years, blacks have fallen backwards while voting for democrats who promise them free stuff, but when blacks backed the GOP who didn't promise free stuff, they actually increased in social economic standards. But yeah, any black conservative is a "sell out" right?