TakeYouToTasker

Define middle class.

When the term "middle class" was coined it represented those making upwards of today's equivalent of about $250k a year. They weren't wealthy, but they also certainly weren't considered working class; hence: "middle class". I assume, however, that isn't the group you're talking about. Please define the term.

Investor: "So, how is the money we invested in your fund used?" Fund manger: "Oh, don't worry; we invested it." Investor: "What is it invested in?' Fund manager: "We invested it in ourselves." Investor: "You invested it in... you?" Fund manger: "Yep." Investor: "Well, what do you do with it?" Fund manager: "We spend it." Investor: "Spend it?" Fund manger: "We spend it." Investor: "Oh... well, you generate a profit with it, I guess?" Fund manager: "Oh, heavens no. We just spend it. We haven't generated a profit in over 100 years." Investor: "But... But... You're going to pay us returns?..." Fund manger: "That's right." Investor: "Well... Where do the returns come fr--" Fund manger: "MAGIC." Investor: "MAGIC?!? But that's insa--" Fund manager: "WIZARDS."

Her financial situation is indicative of her lack of competence. It's a marker for the sort of general ineptitude which doesn't belong in Congress. Which, for anyone who knows anything about Congress, is really saying something.

They have to leave a few carrots out there for the inevitable add-on micro-transactions.

If you weren't so incredibly vapid you'd know I've been making that particular argument for a long time, and not in response to a tweet. I believe that election fraud is one the greatest crimes a government official can commit, as it denies citizens the basic fundament right of self-determination, and essentially returns us to a reality of lords and serfs; and I believe that the penalty for that should be death. Gary, what do you believe should be the penalty should be for government officials conspiring to deny individuals the most basic human freedoms in violation of the law, and without due process?

It's not that he's wrong, it's that it's not how it was intended. If that's a valid response on an intent forum discussing politics, then it's literally a valid response to anything anyone says here. He intended it dismissively, especially as it fits into the dialogue we were having.

Any other empty platitudes today, Gary? You asked a question, and I answered it. Why do you insist on being such a detriment to intelligent conversation here? Seriously.

It's both, however legal immigration goes through a process which slows the drip. Migration isn't a problem, in so much as mass migration is, which is where we get to illegal immigration. People coming here illegally demonstrate through that act alone an incredible amount of desire and industriousness, differentiating them from their compatriots who simply choose to stay at home and live in third world conditions. Indeed. Eroding a tax bases has much larger implications than simply a ,monetary exodus.

You haven't followed my argument. No one should be hanged in this instance, as I don't believe the law prescribes it. My argument is that the law should be changed to require the death penalty for public officials engaging in election fraud, and others engaging in organized election fraud.

I'll say it again: nooses.

There is an incredibly compelling and sound argument that individuals fleeing their country or origin for better economic opportunities actually do incredible amounts of harm to those countries they are leaving. When the brightest, most motivated, and hardest working exit an economy; it makes it much harder for those nations to improve their standing, creating a permanent international economic caste system. IE. permitting mass immigration to the United States does an incredible disservice to the third world, or as the left insists on calling them, "brown people".

They should have achieved obvious success and have been able to demonstrate an incredible amount of competence in their own lives prior to being entrusted with the responsibility of making big decisions for everyone. I'm not sure how or why this is controversial. A person should be able to demonstrate good decision making, complex problem solving, and leadership skills. These skills, when possessed at the level necessary to run the worlds largest economy and make life altering decisions for upwards of 300 million people, lead to the possession of a degree of wealth.

You can't cut federal taxes on people who have no federal tax burden. It's not a tax cut, but is rather a new federal welfare program. It's being presented as a tax cut by those proposing it because they know if they were up front and honest about seeking to expand the welfare state it would be met with skepticism, so instead they lie and manipulate language. It's also further evidence that Democrats aren't being honest when they talk about concern over deficits.

Which is fine. You're free to have as many bad opinions as you'd like.

The level of competence, decision making ability, leadership skills, financial acumen, and complex problem solving skills required to make the largest and most important decisions humanity faces aren't possessed by individuals who can't manage to put away 5-6k or manage their own personal finances. Full stop. There are no barriers someone in the United States in the year 2018 faces which impede the sort of individual we want making these kind of decisions from achieving this minor to the point of being minimal level of success. The types we want in charge pull themselves over those barriers and establish themselves, which is how they prove their competence.

I'm not saying the should be locked out, I'm saying that they don't belong because they aren't qualified. I know they aren't qualified because they have no success in their own personal lives, no financial acumen, no time in leadership, no decision making skills, no complex problem solving skills. Demonstrate the ability to make good decisions for one person first. Then talk about making decisions for the rest of us.

You're conflating two completely disparate ideas. The notion that some people have it hard (I have a very deep personal understanding of this. I come from nothing, and am completely self-made. It's something I've talked about on these boards before.); and who demonstrates the level of competence necessary to make the big decisions which guide us as a nation. Explain how someone who hasn't shown the ability to save money, hasn't demonstrated financial literacy rising to the minimum standard of being able to shelter themselves, hasn't ever held a position of leadership in large organization, hasn't demonstrated complex problem solving skills, doesn't have the benefit of life experience, etc. deserves the opportunity to make decisions involving the worlds most complex issues, deserves to be charged with managing the treasure of an entire nation, and deserves to be part of the elite leadership group overseeing more than 300 million people. You can't. It's an unfathomably stupid argument to make. 30 somethings whom have achieved absolutely nothing in their own lives shouldn't be in Congress. Full stop. If you want to be entrusted with the wealth, laws, and culture of millions and their progeny get your own damn house in order first. You've made claims, source and them. Demonstrate that Christians fundamentalists, Tea Partiers, George W. Bush, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and Donald Trump have low IQs. You don't have evidence, you have confirmation bias.

You think I'm out of touch with the working class because I don't think people who don't have the requisite knowledge, ability, resourcefulness, or decision making ability to achieve a modicum of financial success should be making multi-trillion dollar meta decisions which guide us as a society? That's an incredibly stupid argument.

That word "affluent" again... Stop making that strawman. Not everyone should run for, or be elected to Congress. Everyone who does should be able to demonstrate basic financial competence. Someone who doesn't have 5-6k in personal savings, or have a plan to pay their rent does not have that level of competence. I don't think individuals who are common should be Congresspersons. I think individuals who are exceptional should be, and one of the areas they should necessarily be successful is in their personal finances, because they're going to be making multi-trillion dollar budgetary decisions. The common person should participate in their government by voting, or if more interested, by running for local office. Pull up your unsubstantiated fiat declarations. Your bias is showing.

Again, I agree we need fewer lawyers. You can demonstrate minimal competence and be able to shelter yourself in other professions.

This is a strawman. I don't demand wealthy individuals, only those whom have achieved a degree financial success coupled with the wisdom granted by years of life experience. Then from that pool, look to the ideas. A person doesn't need to be rich to be self minimally self sufficient to the point of being able to afford someplace to live. This is a baseline marker for competence, something I demand from the individuals who represent us.

No, people lacking life experience and financial success, who lack the ability to manage their own personal finances, and don't have a plan to shelter themselves should not be elected to higher office. I don't care what the views of the individual in question are. Our highest elected offices should be filled by statesmen formed from what Jefferson called "the natural aristocracy".

You're actually dumb enough that you took that line literally?