What presidential candidate would be most beneficial to the climbing community and land access?

Having a certain percentage of unemployed people is not only desirable but necessary in a capitalist economy. Consider that. Unemployment is mandatory in our economy. It will always exist no matter who the president is.

powhound84 wrote: I'm from 'Murica! I don't want nobody making me do nothin! mmmmhm yeahhuh.

Ok ok, I'll stop playing devils advocate :) I can't help myself sometimes.

Dong, same thing with debt too. So it's ok to spend spend spend

K.LaCasse wrote:Apes like me? Lazy and uneducated? Let's see that B.A. in Finance you've got there. I'm sure it blows my degrees out of the water! "Children raised in families that are far apart on the income distribution can expect very different economic futures when they become adults. As shown in Figure 2, children raised in low-income families will probably have very low incomes as adults, while children raised in high-income families can anticipate very high incomes as adults. The differences are extreme: The expected income of children raised in well-off families (90th percentile) is about 200 percent larger than the expected income of children raised in poor families (10th percentile) and about 75 percent larger than that of children raised in middle-class families (50th percentile)." pewtrusts.org/~/media/asset… All of your sources say poor kids are likely to make more than your parents. Woohoo! Guess what? Those same sources say nearly all children in any income level are more likely to make more than their parents. So then why is income disparity at an all time high if only the poor are gaining ground, eh? My first response only points out that you vomitted a bunch of guestimated statistics without giving a source. What a "being piece of shit looks like" is someone who grows up in privilege and then blames poor people for being poor. I'd rather vote for a "socialist" with a consistent voting record than any candidate who is being bought out by special interests. Clearly you'd rather have a corporate puppet regime?

Yes, apes like you. Have you learned to google yet? I bet Koko can do it.

I LOVE it that you responded the way I'd hoped. I am disappointed that they flagged and deleted the last post you made, including that part about how I had to have the last word.

Now, does anything in those links I had to lead you to for 3 posts DISPUTE anything I said? Nope. Did I stutter:

Tony B wrote: 64% of people born into the lowest income quintile make it out. ~10% of them make it into the top quintile, and while 30-some% of those born into the top quintile stay there ~10% fall all the way to that bottom quintile. Likewise, the rise from poverty to middle class is > 50% even if you include families with no or negative income.

And do you have any idea who I am voting for? I doubt it.



I don't always troll, but when I do troll, I make sure to just go after the jerks. The types that respond after claiming that someone else always has to have the last word.

Do it again! This is fun!

reboot wrote: To call all of them self-made is a bit strong. Fact is, most of these people have a stronger family background than you & I, or what we can give to the next generation. Knight & Winfrey I'd say qualify (& Zuckerburg's background isn't remarkable), but there isn't a clear blue print on how one can repeat their success. But I agree with you on principle.

I think self-made is accurate, not a misrepresentation, but sure, I'd say about 90% of all people come from a 'stronger family background' than me. That's a low bar, and that's part and parcel to my point. I came from a low-end income family with all kinds of medical problems and a mother who was hit by a car when I was young, destroying her legs.

The folks in the top 400 largely didn't come from billionaire families (nor from families with 10's of millions), and now they are billionaires. But yeah, the principle is the point.

Also agreed that there is no blueprint, but it is clear that you have to at least try...

Bill Kirby wrote: I was asking Pow that question as it relates to the fact that SS makes you save for retirement. Not if SS has the highest returns.

Makes sense, but I was pointing out that SS actually STOPS me from saving (that portion) for retirement and thus from getting a return on it.
PS: "You didn't build that." (wink)

Of course you don't acknowledge where I posted information from Pew to refute you.

So I'm a jerk because I want to improve the quality of life for people in my country and help kids go to school if that means paying a higher tax rate? Priceless. Insult me all you like, it won't make you right! And we both know the only reason you haven't named the candidate you support is because it would open you up to criticism. There is no perfect candidate, but I'll settle for an honest one.

JoesWall

^lol

Tony B wrote: Sander's own figures call for >$2T increase in federal spending, which is > 50%. So a few percent is not going to cover it. (lol!) I got that number directly from berniesanders.com/issues/ho… It is all right there charted neatly under: "Cost and Revenue of Proposed Plans" I'd also gladly give 10% more if I thought it would be used effectively. But I don't.

You won't give 10% more. You'll likely save money, assuming you pay for health insurance. It literally tells you how everything is paid for in that link.

How much more/less you'll pay:
www.bernietax.com

William Thiry wrote: Perhaps if you stopped worrying so much about the rich you would have more time to focus on getting youself out of poverty. I mean screw the rich - let them have their fun. Just make sure they pay their fair share in taxes. Otherwise, put your energy into getting yourself ahead of the game.

I'm not in poverty--far from it. I was lucky to be born into an upper middle class family and pursued a graduate degree without going into debt. I just don't believe anyone in a country this rich should be so poor.

K.LaCasse wrote:Of course you don't acknowledge where I posted information from Pew to refute you.

What statistic did you refute?
If you mean lecture me about things I took no position on, and contribute noting to undermine the FACTS that I posted, then yeah, I guess if you completely change the meaning of the word 'refute' from what it is presently to "to argue against facts with no backing and go off on tangential points to change the discussion" then you did at least do that.

I take it that you didn't get your degree in English?

D B wrote:^lol You won't give 10% more. You'll likely save money, assuming you pay for health insurance. It literally tells you how everything is paid for in that link. How much more/less you'll pay: bernietax.com

Even Krugman said that was fantastical, and he's a cheer-leader for universal/single payer.
krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2…

Krugman is a Hillary fanatic. You can find tons of economists on either side.

politicususa.com/2016/01/14…

Tony B wrote:If you mean lecture me about things I took no position on

Let's recap Tony boy. I made a post saying you're more likely to be rich if you're born rich. You reply with research that says people are more likely to make more money than their parents. I took no position on that. I then posted another Pew study that supported my original argument that your income and your parents' income are correlated and you say I'm the one making tangential points?

D B wrote:Krugman is a Hillary fanatic. You can find tons of economists on either side. politicususa.com/2016/01/14…

Agreed on Krugman. I never liked him, as I think he's overly generous on many fronts, and the $1T coin idea was what really did it for me.
So OK, I'll be more specific:
The link you posted also only accounts the 2.2% tax, or well under $2000 for the average worker (and that's only about 1/2 of us) Yet the medicare system currently spends $12,000 per enrolee.

This also ignores how bernie said he'd pay for that, which is, according to his site:
"Medicare for All Health Care Plan : Paid for by a 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers, a 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households, progressive income tax rates, taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work, limiting tax deductions for the rich, adjusting the estate tax, and savings from health tax expenditures. = $1.39 trillion / year"

So yeah, Bernie is selling you $12,000 per person based on 1/2 of us paying $2,000. And you are not suspicious that the cost won't be reduced by 90%?
The link you offered only accounts for a small amount of the income and hides/ignores the rest as if it didn't exist. It's deceptive at best, and that's charitable. It's a bald-faced lie if you look at it with any scrutiny, it isn't even internally consistent in Bernie's page.

K.LaCasse wrote: Let's recap Tony boy. I made a post saying you're more likely to be rich if you're born rich. You reply with research that says people are more likely to make more money than their parents. I took no position on that. I then posted another Pew study that supported my original argument that your income and your parents' income are correlated and you say I'm the one making tangential points?

No, actually you said:

K.LaCasse wrote: So if you're born rich, you are held to zero standards and can skate by but if you're born poor you have to bust ass day in and day out just to eat? Sounds like a ridiculous double standard.

And I showed that this was factually incorrect. What I posted was the FACTS, which remain correct:

Tony B wrote: 64% of people born into the lowest income quintile make it out. ~10% of them make it into the top quintile, and while 30-some% of those born into the top quintile stay there ~10% fall all the way to that bottom quintile. Likewise, the rise from poverty to middle class is > 50% even if you include families with no or negative income. It's hardly predestined by birth.

I also mentioned that I and my 2 nephews have risen from bottom quintile to either top quintile or to Ivy-leage status (pretty good prospects for top quintile) as my own personal experience. Not that anecdotes are everything, but you mention starting and staying middle class, so between the two of us, I probably know a lot more about what it takes to move up, or to fail to do so.

So how's that recap workin' out for you? Working out fine for me so far, I'm happy with it. Want a banana? You might feel better.

Tony B wrote: Agreed on Krugman. I never liked him, as I think he's overly generous on many fronts, and the $1T coin idea was what really did it for me. So OK, I'll be more specific: The link you posted also only accounts the 2.2% tax, or well under $2000 for the average worker (and that's only about 1/2 of us) Yet the medicare system currently spends $12,000 per enrolee. This also ignores how bernie said he'd pay for that, which is, according to his site: "Medicare for All Health Care Plan : Paid for by a 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers, a 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households, progressive income tax rates, taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work, limiting tax deductions for the rich, adjusting the estate tax, and savings from health tax expenditures. = $1.39 trillion / year" So yeah, Bernie is selling you $12,000 per person based on 1/2 of us paying $2,000. And you are not suspicious that the cost won't be reduced by 90%? The link you offered only accounts for a small amount of the income and hides/ignores the rest as if it didn't exist. It's deceptive at best, and that's charitable. It's a bald-faced lie if you look at it with any scrutiny, it isn't even internally consistent in Bernie's page.

More detail:

berniesanders.com/wp-conten…

Your $12000 figure is based on a system that works around privatized care. We pay the most per capita out of any first world country, by enormous amounts. I don't claim to be an economist or healthcare expert, so I'm not going to personally analyze/estimate all the numbers, but plenty of people are saying it adds up. And it works just fine in most other first world countries, so there's no reason it can't work here.

From same study

D B wrote: More detail: berniesanders.com/wp-conten… Your $12000 figure is based on a system that works around privatized care. We pay the most per capita out of any first world country, by enormous amounts. I don't claim to be an economist or healthcare expert, so I'm not going to personally analyze/estimate all the numbers, but plenty of people are saying it adds up. And it works just fine in most other first world countries, so there's no reason it can't work here.

Agreed that they claim that there will be some savings. But NOBODY gets by on $2k/person, even where the cost of living is much much lower.



And, do you at least find it strange that your link accounts for only the 2.2% flat tax whilst Bernie's site lists a complete handful of other taxes and changes?

Tony B wrote: Agreed that they claim that there will be some savings. But NOBODY gets by on $2k/person, even where the cost of living is much much lower. And, do you at least find it strange that your link accounts for only the 2.2% flat tax whilst Bernie's site lists a complete handful of other taxes and changes?

The link accounts for the 2.2% tax, the 6.2% payroll tax, and all of the various other changes. It's on the 2nd page.

Where are you getting the $2k/person number?

$1.38 trillion/320 million = $4300 per person, which is still higher than most countries

@Tony Baby I made plenty of other comments, including the one I was referring to in my post, but you can continue to cherry pick the ones that work for you just like whatever slimeball candidate you support. Just because I'm middle class doesn't mean I don't know anyone who moved up/down (you're using nephews, I could easily use my wife as an example).

Your insults are a desperate and rather pathetic way to cover up your idiotic arguments.

Christian wrote:

Yes, Christian, no disputing that, other than to quibble over the numbers in a small sense. With the 3 studies I cited, income level is not per-ordained by birth class, either high or low.

There is absolutely a relationship, and I have never denied that.
And as for the cause, other studies show that one of the most provable causes is education, and these studies make mention of that. It is also probably correlated to and caused by many other factors, including culture, race, geography, and social cohorts (IE: Gangstas vs Nerds).
So yeah, Christian, if I were not ready to accept those 3 studies (the Harvard one seems to be the largest and most statistically significant, as well as refined in time to be relevant to the current generation with numbers), I would not have posted them. I'm ready to agree on the facts, even if you pick a particular single study within the 3 as an example. I posted them all first, after all. Been following this issue since 2012 when I first read the study you just cited. It's a matter of discussion in my family since we want the boys out of their situation and education is how that is best accomplished.