Actual Conservative Policies or Stances?

[Plasmodium]

29 minutes ago, jross said:

What do you @ThreePointTakedown say concerning Thomas Sowell?

Is his success stemming from privilege and does he lack heart?

A poor, fatherless African American with a net worth better than the average Joe?

Would you believe a man could be born in the 1930s, manage college in the 1950s and 60s, and be successful? 

He holds libertarian-conservative views.  He warned about the unintended consequences of reparations, including perpetuating a victim mentality and creating divisions among different racial or ethnic groups. 

Supports the open market.  Values education.  Social welfare skeptic.  Values individualism. 

Critical of high taxes and government spending?  

I didn't know much about Thomas... Wowza he nailed the recent presidents

• Didn't want Trump as president in 2016
• By 2018, said Trump was better than the previous administration
• If Biden became president, the Democratic Party would have an enormous amount of control over the nation, and if this happened, they could twin with the "radical left" and ideas such as defunding the police could come to fruition.

It's almost as if... he is chanting with me on this BBS... MERIT, MERIT, MERIT!

He is wrong on the second two points on president!

[Bigbrog]

17 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Wow...you claim others of having a "MO"...you ASSuming things about people is your "MO".  Funny part is you "think" you are fighting for the oppressed when in actuality you are doing no one any good with the things you say.  Here is a hint, people that are less fortunate than others don't need you making excuses for them.  Excuse after excuse.  By the way, it isn't a person's fault if they had a good family to fall back on.  It isn't anyone's fault if they worked hard to get themselves out of a bad situation. Your opinions of whether I am helping aside. I fail to see how I am making excuses. I was and continue to point out that the opinions that people hold on certain topics may be skewed by their own unique experience. That those opinions could lead them to vote against their own and the interest of others in dire need. We all need to the clarity of a different perspective once in a while. If left to just what is easy or makes us comfortable and happy we could find ourselves holding some pretty bleak views. We could lose empathy or sympathy in the plight of those in less fortuitous circumstances then our own. And forget that to help raise the least among us we help to raise all.

I too was in jross' position when I was younger, almost exactly the same position, a lot of debt and missed payments from extremely high interest rate credit cards and loans (I had no debt history, nor did my family), but I didn't have any of the things you claimed he had, and I was still able to get out of the debt I racked up...how...through working multiple jobs, getting a degree, and learning how to budget with absolutely ZERO help from anyone else. Seems as though you went through some tough years. You are proud of the person that came out the other side. And you do seem a little edgy when someone you feel was in a similar situation as you is challenged. As if you’re taking that challenge on as if I am questioning you or your experience. I’m sorry you feel that way. I make guesses about j mostly because we’ve had a lengthy dialogue on a number of topics and I have noticed(maybe mistakenly) a theme is several of the examples they have put forward. It seems as if you are trying to brag that you had no help with anything. That doesn’t sound fun or appealing or something I would wish on anyone given the chance, so I'm sorry. I’m glad you were able to make something of yourself under those circumstances. I hope you don’t have the opinion that because you made something of yourself from little to nothing that everyone in similar or worse circumstances is undeserving of help that may have eased your way a bit? If that is true, I would love to understand your position. If not, I’m glad you feel that way. I look forward to understanding you and your situation better.

Let's see if you can work in reality and facts instead of pure emotion...who are the "victims still today"?   And I ask based on policies in place today, or "systemic actions" that occur today.  Please provide actual evidence of this. Do you understand what ‘moving the goal posts’ means? You are framing the argument as if a systemic problem that goes back 100+ years should only be looked at in terms of the policies of now. I understand that it is easier and less upsetting to ignore the terrible acts of past leaders of this country. But those things happened. The effects of those actions and policies still echo today. That you may be uninterested in acknowledging or righting such a massive injustice is unfortunate and as is your right to have that opinion. But wounds don’t heal if they are ignored. If you’re ok with that then you can yell at the top of your lungs against addressing anything other then what is right in front of you.

To answer your question, it is the lack of policies to acknowledge, study, and discuss the atrocities of the past that are the issue and how much one side wants to fight in order to avoid addressing heinous instances from our past. Certain areas of certain places were acted on to keep those people from gaining upward mobility. I have a feeling you know that’s true. That these policies and practices are no longer legal or practiced as widely does not take away that the long term effects are being felt today. If not direct money to people, which could help greatly for some. Money to rebuild schools, infrastructure, libraries, investment in local businesses, something as simple as a grocery store. These are all things that would not fix the problem tomorrow but would indicate to those in the community that they are no longer thought of a second class. Will that take away money from those that already have these things? Very probably. Will they be outraged? Of course. Will they probably do just fine without for a little while? Almost assuredly.  Equality to privilege feels like oppression. 

You know...this was actually a good post.  This I can get on board within terms of having a discussion.  You are right...I do get a little "squirrely" when people claim "privilege" as a reason people made something of themselves and others who haven't made something of themselves didn't have "privilege".  Anyway, I understand the past and how terrible it was for certain groups of people...we should NEVER repeat those times in our history; however, we shouldn't oppress groups of people for oppressing other's in the past.  We have done a good job and continue to do a good job to fix the policies that do not promote fairness...but I live by the moto that fair doesn't mean equal either.  I also live by the adage that I treat everyone equally and only judge people based on their character....not their skin color, where they were born, who they marry, how much money they have or don't have, or how they identify themselves or dress.

Anyway, thanks for posting a non-judgmental/confrontational post...even though mine was.  Merry Christmas!

[ThreePointTakedown]

14 hours ago, jross said:

What do you @ThreePointTakedown say concerning Thomas Sowell?

Is his success stemming from privilege and does he lack heart?

A poor, fatherless African American with a net worth better than the average Joe?

Would you believe a man could be born in the 1930s, manage college in the 1950s and 60s, and be successful? 

He holds libertarian-conservative views.  He warned about the unintended consequences of reparations, including perpetuating a victim mentality and creating divisions among different racial or ethnic groups. 

Supports the open market.  Values education.  Social welfare skeptic.  Values individualism. 

Critical of high taxes and government spending?  

I didn't know much about Thomas... Wowza he nailed the recent presidents

• Didn't want Trump as president in 2016
• By 2018, said Trump was better than the previous administration
• If Biden became president, the Democratic Party would have an enormous amount of control over the nation, and if this happened, they could twin with the "radical left" and ideas such as defunding the police could come to fruition.

It's almost as if... he is chanting with me on this BBS... MERIT, MERIT, MERIT!

What do you @ThreePointTakedown say concerning Thomas Sowell? Different strokes for different folks. I am not an expert. My philosophy is that I take sides with those that have less power or influence.

Is his success stemming from privilege and does he lack heart? Perhaps in some ways. And perhaps in some ways.

A poor, fatherless African American with a net worth better than the average Joe? Not sure what question you’re asking.

Would you believe a man could be born in the 1930s, manage college in the 1950s and 60s, and be successful? He’s not the only one that’s done that. But again, outliers are not indicative of a trend just that they are outliers.

He holds libertarian-conservative views.  He warned about the unintended consequences of reparations, including perpetuating a victim mentality and creating divisions among different racial or ethnic groups. I’m sure he has some reason for saying that. Smart people can be wrong. This might be that occasion. One single person holding a similar view to yours does not make yours correct. Outlier.

Supports the open market.  Values education.  Social welfare skeptic.  Values individualism. Fair. Interview a few things. His book is quoted as saying, ” Dr. King's message was equal opportunity for individuals regardless of race. In the years that followed, the goal changed to equal outcomes for groups.” Not sure who has said or inferred that equal outcomes is the goal, but to me that smacks of dishonesty. At no point can I recall anyone advocating for equal results. Even as a layman I know that is an impossibility. If that is what his scholarship is based on he may be mistaken in his outcomes and opinions therein.

*If you read the interview there are plenty of issues with his answers and the questions would love to, and I might give my opinion of the whole thing. Could be fun. Talking about lots of assumptions. Would be interested to see the data on these opinions. 

Critical of high taxes and government spending?  Not sure of the question again.

I didn't know much about Thomas... Wowza he nailed the recent presidents

• Didn't want Trump as president in 2016 Not wanting a criminally insane game show host to have nuke codes. Shocking.
• By 2018, said Trump was better than the previous administration Based on what? The health care plan he rolled out and passed? Tax cuts for the uber wealth? Criminally negligent approach and handling of a pandemic? The discussion of jab vs no jab notwithstanding. His approach to denying that it was happening and villainizing other countries. Which may have caused a spike in hate crimes against Asian people. Seems like he is equal opportunity when it comes to using any group to point his supporters at, as the cause of their plight. Which then leads to an uptick in hate crimes. I wonder why that is? Is there a parallel on the other side? One side hates fascists, is that the same?
• If Biden became president, the Democratic Party would have an enormous amount of control over the nation, and if this happened, they could twin with the "radical left" and ideas such as defunding the police could come to fruition. Did any of those things happen? Did 45 cozy up with the radical right to put wildly unqualified judges on the bench to further an agenda? Oh yes he did! So everything he was not in favor of Biden doing, 45 did and he was fine with it. That’s a bit telling don’t you think. Maybe he found a way to justify his sincerely held beliefs cloaked in scholarship. That would be something that one side likes to say about climate change, young earth, flat earth, and myriad of other topics that tend to not agree with their politics. Even though the vast majority of scholarship disagrees with them.

It's almost as if... he is chanting with me on this BBS... MERIT, MERIT, MERIT! No one ever said merit doesn’t have its place. It seems as if you are trying to not acknowledge that to have a system based largely on merit there needs to be a more even starting point for everyone as a control to determine what merit really is. Because all the examples you and others have given on this and other threads want to point at obvious privilege and say that you did it purely on merit. Which isn’t true. Be honest and recognize your work ethic helped but being born into your situation, which was/is vastly better then A LOT of people, may have aided in where you have gotten to. And that their situation being much worse off then yours, could be a factor in not reaching a similar level of success. Looking back with clarity of vision and seeing the flaws in our parents’ approach and the things they subjected us to. Even though, at the time we thought nothing of it. They did their best, usually. Can’t fault them for not knowing or just being exhausted. But the truth is, good or bad, we as kids are not responsible for our situation. We are familiarized with whatever our parents and loved ones expose us to. Whatever they feel is beneficial for us at the time and/or in the future. Be it; self-sufficiency, strict adherence to a religion, love for the least among us, or just money. We have to navigate a world with different opinions as to the best way forward and we must grapple with it. Change our minds or change the world.

[ThreePointTakedown]

15 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

You know...this was actually a good post.  This I can get on board within terms of having a discussion.  You are right...I do get a little "squirrely" when people claim "privilege" as a reason people made something of themselves and others who haven't made something of themselves didn't have "privilege".  Anyway, I understand the past and how terrible it was for certain groups of people...we should NEVER repeat those times in our history; however, we shouldn't oppress groups of people for oppressing other's in the past.  We have done a good job and continue to do a good job to fix the policies that do not promote fairness...but I live by the moto that fair doesn't mean equal either.  I also live by the adage that I treat everyone equally and only judge people based on their character....not their skin color, where they were born, who they marry, how much money they have or don't have, or how they identify themselves or dress.

Anyway, thanks for posting a non-judgmental/confrontational post...even though mine was.  Merry Christmas!

Glad we can have a good convo. 

Determining who was most impacted by the acts of the past and what could be done to give them a leg up from where they are and giving it to them, does not have to lead to the oppression of other people. 

Also, and mind you I am not a fan of anything that even seems like it is purposefully unfair(not sure if you've noticed), but how can something be fair and unequal?  

[Bigbrog]

On 12/20/2023 at 9:09 AM, ThreePointTakedown said:

Glad we can have a good convo. 

Determining who was most impacted by the acts of the past and what could be done to give them a leg up from where they are and giving it to them, does not have to lead to the oppression of other people. 

Also, and mind you I am not a fan of anything that even seems like it is purposefully unfair(not sure if you've noticed), but how can something be fair and unequal?  

Easy question...I have had as much opportunity as my best friend from high school...yet he makes significantly more money than me.  Another example...professional athletes...I could never be professional basketball player due to my physical make up.  

[jross]

On 12/15/2023 at 1:17 PM, ThreePointTakedown said:

Social Security:

• Is it intergenerational injustice? Nope. Just used as a political football because it was successful and thus needs to be dismantled to prove that the system doesn’t work. If given everything it needs plus a hike in the level by which the tax is taken out, it would be even more successful. Not everyone has the wherewithal or the means to save for retirement or bad investments or stock market crash 6 months before retiring. Having a bit of a cushion that you pay into your whole life, that you don’t have to think or worry about, is nice.  
• What is the consequence of the government supporting the people rather than the people supporting the government? Would love to hear your answer to this one.

The program is a poorly run, mandated social net for retirement and handicap insurance.

Current workers pay Social Security taxes, and these taxes fund the benefits received by current retirees. This intergenerational transfer system is based on the idea that each generation pays for the benefits of the generation that preceded it. The expectation is that future generations of workers will, in turn, contribute to the system to support those who come after them.  The problem is that the younger generation cannot pay for the previous generation.  The benefits will reduce, there is influence to defer benefit collection until older, and there won't be funds when it's our turn.

The government is not making good use of its funds.  It is a wicked and lazy servant, burying the money in the ground... 

The effective interest return in 2022 was 2.4%.  It has averaged 5.1% returns and breached 10% six times since 1940.  The S&P 500 has averaged 11% returns and breached 10% forty-five times since 1940.

I have already paid $240K into social security and will keep paying for a couple of decades.  Without further contribution from me, this should grow 5.1% annually for 25 years to $830K... barely beating inflation. With the S&P, it should grow 11% annually for 25 years to $3.26M.  My kids will not see this money.  If I die, my spouse may not get any money. 

I'll pay another $500K until retirement, and then I'm looking at $450K returned in social security checks over perhaps 10 years.  

When my dad was killed in his 40s, after 20 years of government work (Air Traffic Control), my mother remarried within 2 years, and before she was 60 years old.  My mother lost spousal benefits, and at 20 years old, I was not eligible either.  $260K+ paid in for naught in return.  

I'd pay the government to encourage and enable individual empowerment and fiscal responsibility.  Mandate personal 401Ks, etc. if it wants to protect Mary AND me.  But the harder I work, the more money the government gives Mary.  The government is victimizing me and making Mary government-dependent.

Too many people depend on the government for retirement funds that are too few and will not be there when they retire.  I can see the day when the disciplined folks have a larger share of the personal retirement funds taken and redistributed.

How about a compromise to a hybrid, where each contributor has an incentive?  Given Social Security is a 12% tax mandate... a $45K annual salary over 45 years at 5.1% return is ~$900K.  At 11% it is $5.9M.  Can I have some of that?  I'd like to think there is some compromise between redistributing and keeping a percentage.  I've averaged 55-hour work weeks for most of my career.  What's my reward?  A larger share of no control.

There is some generalization in this... but what a poor solution for a legit problem (future savings).

[WrestlingRasta]

5 hours ago, jross said:

The program is a poorly run, mandated social net for retirement and handicap insurance.

Current workers pay Social Security taxes, and these taxes fund the benefits received by current retirees. This intergenerational transfer system is based on the idea that each generation pays for the benefits of the generation that preceded it. The expectation is that future generations of workers will, in turn, contribute to the system to support those who come after them.  The problem is that the younger generation cannot pay for the previous generation.  The benefits will reduce, there is influence to defer benefit collection until older, and there won't be funds when it's our turn.

The government is not making good use of its funds.  It is a wicked and lazy servant, burying the money in the ground... 

The effective interest return in 2022 was 2.4%.  It has averaged 5.1% returns and breached 10% six times since 1940.  The S&P 500 has averaged 11% returns and breached 10% forty-five times since 1940.

I have already paid $240K into social security and will keep paying for a couple of decades.  Without further contribution from me, this should grow 5.1% annually for 25 years to $830K... barely beating inflation. With the S&P, it should grow 11% annually for 25 years to $3.26M.  My kids will not see this money.  If I die, my spouse may not get any money. 

I'll pay another $500K until retirement, and then I'm looking at $450K returned in social security checks over perhaps 10 years.  

When my dad was killed in his 40s, after 20 years of government work (Air Traffic Control), my mother remarried within 2 years, and before she was 60 years old.  My mother lost spousal benefits, and at 20 years old, I was not eligible either.  $260K+ paid in for naught in return.  

I'd pay the government to encourage and enable individual empowerment and fiscal responsibility.  Mandate personal 401Ks, etc. if it wants to protect Mary AND me.  But the harder I work, the more money the government gives Mary.  The government is victimizing me and making Mary government-dependent.

Too many people depend on the government for retirement funds that are too few and will not be there when they retire.  I can see the day when the disciplined folks have a larger share of the personal retirement funds taken and redistributed.

How about a compromise to a hybrid, where each contributor has an incentive?  Given Social Security is a 12% tax mandate... a $45K annual salary over 45 years at 5.1% return is ~$900K.  At 11% it is $5.9M.  Can I have some of that?  I'd like to think there is some compromise between redistributing and keeping a percentage.  I've averaged 55-hour work weeks for most of my career.  What's my reward?  A larger share of no control.

There is some generalization in this... but what a poor solution for a legit problem (future savings).

That’s a whole lot, but something we agree on. SS is not something I have factored in one iota in regards to retirement. It’s just something that’s not in my control and I gave up on bothering with it. Whatever my benefit when the time comes, money for toys and travel. 

[Ohio Elite]

7 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

That’s a whole lot, but something we agree on. SS is not something I have factored in one iota in regards to retirement. It’s just something that’s not in my control and I gave up on bothering with it. Whatever my benefit when the time comes, money for toys and travel. 

Agreed!  I'm 41 so I won't be surprised if it doesn't exist by the time I qualify for it. Not planning on needing it either way. But it would be nice to get some of my money back.

[JimmyBT]

On 12/18/2023 at 8:19 AM, ThreePointTakedown said:

Do tell. What are your concerns? 

Too. Much. Government.  

[ThreePointTakedown]

14 hours ago, jross said:

The program is a poorly run, mandated social net for retirement and handicap insurance.

Current workers pay Social Security taxes, and these taxes fund the benefits received by current retirees. This intergenerational transfer system is based on the idea that each generation pays for the benefits of the generation that preceded it. The expectation is that future generations of workers will, in turn, contribute to the system to support those who come after them.  The problem is that the younger generation cannot pay for the previous generation.  The benefits will reduce, there is influence to defer benefit collection until older, and there won't be funds when it's our turn.

The government is not making good use of its funds.  It is a wicked and lazy servant, burying the money in the ground... 

The effective interest return in 2022 was 2.4%.  It has averaged 5.1% returns and breached 10% six times since 1940.  The S&P 500 has averaged 11% returns and breached 10% forty-five times since 1940.

I have already paid $240K into social security and will keep paying for a couple of decades.  Without further contribution from me, this should grow 5.1% annually for 25 years to $830K... barely beating inflation. With the S&P, it should grow 11% annually for 25 years to $3.26M.  My kids will not see this money.  If I die, my spouse may not get any money. 

I'll pay another $500K until retirement, and then I'm looking at $450K returned in social security checks over perhaps 10 years.  

When my dad was killed in his 40s, after 20 years of government work (Air Traffic Control), my mother remarried within 2 years, and before she was 60 years old.  My mother lost spousal benefits, and at 20 years old, I was not eligible either.  $260K+ paid in for naught in return.  

I'd pay the government to encourage and enable individual empowerment and fiscal responsibility.  Mandate personal 401Ks, etc. if it wants to protect Mary AND me.  But the harder I work, the more money the government gives Mary.  The government is victimizing me and making Mary government-dependent.

Too many people depend on the government for retirement funds that are too few and will not be there when they retire.  I can see the day when the disciplined folks have a larger share of the personal retirement funds taken and redistributed.

How about a compromise to a hybrid, where each contributor has an incentive?  Given Social Security is a 12% tax mandate... a $45K annual salary over 45 years at 5.1% return is ~$900K.  At 11% it is $5.9M.  Can I have some of that?  I'd like to think there is some compromise between redistributing and keeping a percentage.  I've averaged 55-hour work weeks for most of my career.  What's my reward?  A larger share of no control.

There is some generalization in this... but what a poor solution for a legit problem (future savings).

The program is a poorly run, mandated social net for retirement and handicap insurance. Agreed, things can be run better. But it seems as if one party has the philosophy of knee capping a program in order to campaign on its inefficiency and ineffectiveness rather then to see if, while fully funded and staffed, it can have the intended outcomes/benefits. I imagine this will be a theme in any government convo.

Current workers pay Social Security taxes, and these taxes fund the benefits received by current retirees. This intergenerational transfer system is based on the idea that each generation pays for the benefits of the generation that preceded it. The expectation is that future generations of workers will, in turn, contribute to the system to support those who come after them.  The problem is that the younger generation cannot pay for the previous generation.  The benefits will reduce, there is influence to defer benefit collection until older, and there won't be funds when it's our turn. Fair point. Currently soc sec tax is taken from up to $160k. Let take off the limit? If fewer people are paying for more retired people. Lets up the amount that is paid by people who can afford it. They’ll get their share when they retire. If they don’t need it at that point, who cares?

The government is not making good use of its funds.  It is a wicked and lazy servant, burying the money in the ground... That’s a tough thing to agree or disagree to. As, I imagine, we would have differing definitions of good and bad spending and why? Do you have any particular instances or programs?

The effective interest return in 2022 was 2.4%.  It has averaged 5.1% returns and breached 10% six times since 1940.  The S&P 500 has averaged 11% returns and breached 10% forty-five times since 1940. I am very much an amateur when it comes to the stock market. Index funds all the way for me. *don’t take investing advice from a non-wrestling wrestling thread*

I have already paid $240K into social security and will keep paying for a couple of decades.  Without further contribution from me, this should grow 5.1% annually for 25 years to $830K... barely beating inflation. With the S&P, it should grow 11% annually for 25 years to $3.26M.  My kids will not see this money.  If I die, my spouse may not get any money. Investing is tricky, no doubt. Rules on benefits are confusing and often without nuance. Agreed.

I'll pay another $500K until retirement, and then I'm looking at $450K returned in social security checks over perhaps 10 years.  Hopefully as a supplement to any retirement funds you have saved up. If so, congrats you’re ahead of the game. Many people aren’t and those small checks will help to keep them from eating cat food.

When my dad was killed in his 40s, after 20 years of government work (Air Traffic Control), my mother remarried within 2 years, and before she was 60 years old.  My mother lost spousal benefits, and at 20 years old, I was not eligible either.  $260K+ paid in for naught in return.  That’s a tough situation. My sympathy to you and your family. I hope those policies have changed since then so others are saved from having to endure that.

I'd pay the government to encourage and enable individual empowerment and fiscal responsibility.  Mandate personal 401Ks, etc. if it wants to protect Mary AND me.  But the harder I work, the more money the government gives Mary.  The government is victimizing me and making Mary government-dependent. Agreed. But its tricky when the world, if It had a motivation, would be to knock off all of the sharp edges of ourselves that make us unique and push us towards conformity with the group.  

Too many people depend on the government for retirement funds that are too few and will not be there when they retire.  I can see the day when the disciplined folks have a larger share of the personal retirement funds taken and redistributed. Also agree. The programs were put into place during an age before people would/could save for retirement. Also the life expectancy was between 59 and 63. If you retired at all, it wouldn’t be for long. So with advances in medicine and health we inadvertently messed up this program that was meant to help. I’d like to see the numbers of people that are able to(can afford) to put away for retirement over the years. To give working people a little comfort or dignity in their later years, I think it’s a worth program.

How about a compromise to a hybrid, where each contributor has an incentive?  Given Social Security is a 12% tax mandate... a $45K annual salary over 45 years at 5.1% return is ~$900K.  At 11% it is $5.9M.  Can I have some of that?  I'd like to think there is some compromise between redistributing and keeping a percentage.  I've averaged 55-hour work weeks for most of my career.  What's my reward?  A larger share of no control. I’m sure there are things that could change that would benefit more and more people. But with so many individuals there’s bound to be people with unique circumstances that will fall outside of any foreseeable scenarios.

There is some generalization in this... but what a poor solution for a legit problem (future savings). There are some benefits to some people. Will all people be happy all the time? No.

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, JimmyBT said:

Too. Much. Government.  

In what ways?

Any details you'd like to share? 

[ThreePointTakedown]

20 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

Easy question...I have had as much opportunity as my best friend from high school...yet he makes significantly more money than me.  Another example...professional athletes...I could never be professional basketball player due to my physical make up.  

Not sure if I see your point in these scenarios. Which is fair and which is unequal? 

Easy question...I have had as much opportunity(equal and fair, I guess) as my best friend from high school...yet he makes significantly more money than me(this is unequal, but not unfair, where did your paths split, why is there a difference?).  Another example...professional athletes...I could never be professional basketball player(I have a hard time seeing anything unfair in this situation, if they make it to the pros, which is far from a lock, most don't make nearly as much as is portrayed in media and they don't then many don't have skills outside of sports to fall back on, having a hard time seeing your point, pros have plenty of inadequacies that 'regular' folk take for granted) due to my physical make up.(unequal, but not unfair, again, you probably have things that a pro athlete doesn't or couldn't have)

[JimmyBT]

59 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

In what ways?

Any details you'd like to share? 

Pick something the government runs efficiently and effectively.  

[JimmyBT]

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

In what ways?

Any details you'd like to share? 

Taxes.  46% pay zero income tax now and it’s only going to get worse. 

[jross]

Snake Plissken knows