The general public are free to peacefully counter protest. The government is not free to incite to violence by name-calling and demanding there be retribution against citizens for refusing to participate in a ritual, patriotic or religious. I don't care if people decide to not watch football bc some player annoyed them for any reason. I don't care if people decide to peacefully protest outside an arena. political comment deleted by moderator.

THIS! I could not care less about knee taking. They can if they want. It's peaceful so whatever. If their employer wants to deal with it, I don't care. I have never been to a football game in my life and don't much care to start. Political comment deleted by moderator.

Firstly, taxing that 3% I mentioned would mean that even if the going rate stated the same or only slightly better, those employees could have better policies and services to improve their lives. Secondly, insisting on a UBI, would also mitigate that going rate.

It doesn't sound like it. It sounds like you want to keep the status quo while insulting anyone who sees that it's not a sustainable ethical status. I have no reason to believe any of us are not also busy making an IRL difference as best we can.

And actually there have been cases where employees banded together to agree on company wide pay cuts instead of layoffs bc they valued the company.

While I don't agree entirely with Bluegoat, she does being valid points to the discussion. If the company has more profit, and one hopes it does, why should *only* the CEOs income reflect that? It might not be because employees worked harder or better. It might be because the company automated, got a better deal on their resources or any other number of factors. But when employees are the factor, why wouldn't that be reflected in their income too? And if it isn't, then where does the employer get off complaining about employees who don't care about their job?

That's flat out not true. That's what they get with your method. Because every despot thinks they are a great charitable good guy who should get exceptions because they are doing what's best for society.

No I wouldn't. I don't care what they are doing with it, it's unreasonable to have 3% of the population controlling the majority of policy and finance for our society. That they seem nice enough folks has nothing to do with it. That was the argument of various forms of elite throughout history. "But I'm a nice one! I'm good to the serfs!" No dice for that argument.

I don't think that is true. I see ice cream for 2x or more the cost of B&J at the store.

I agree it is. I have no issue with profit in a healthy and ethical format. But yes, there is such a thing as too much. Profit in excess is unhealthy. As for where that line is, I put forth the suggestion of starting with redistributing some of the excess at the top 3%.

Exactly so.

I see no value to not helping my kids become more educated and employable as much as I can, which at our household income is very little these days. If I don't, it's more likely they will build more debt than more character. I'm also of the rising waters float all boats mentality. If we help each other, we all benefit. People can choose otherwise and I'll try to be politely silent, but I'd strongly disagree with them about it.

This isn't a difficult concept. There has to be a point where it is no longer simply creating profit, it's creating serfdom. The bottom line is that 3% of the population IS doing that. And the only way to avoid civil unrest is for the people to have the ability to redistribute some of that wealth via taxes and social policies. I'll say straight out, I don't care the those 3% fearing it will only make them multimillionaires instead of multibillionaires or more. That's not just about profit. It's about power. And that much power should not be so concentrated in so few in a supposedly democratic republic.

I completely understand and personally know that frustration. But here is the deal... you can't educate out this problem and you can punish it into not happening either. There is always going to be a certain small segment of the population like this that the rest of us just have to suck it up and provide for because to not provide for them costs us more in our personal humanity than it does in finances. And a UBI would be a great start in that direction. It might not change her habit, but it would ease YOUR situation dealing with her at least a bit.

I have never ever made any such statement because I have never ever agreed with such a statement. You are confusing me with someone else.

Not if that's your best refutation. I had no intention of offending. I tend to converse online very similar to in person conversations over my dinner table. Sooooo? Is not an unusual way to pose a theoretical question. Yeaaaahno. Is not an outlandish response to something that makes to sense. Pointing out a fact you don't like hearing doesn't make it no longer a fact. If person A is discussing poverty/low income and person B responds that those people can just choose to not go to Disney or buy expensive jeans, that person B lacks basic understanding of what poverty/low income means. No, those people cannot choose to not go to Disney or buy more expensive jeans. That implies they could choose to buy it and they can't. Poverty/low income by its nature in this country tends to mean they have few or no genuine choices.

And yes, we have laws against price gauging because we recognize that there should be limits to profiting off situations. We have many laws against all kinds of ways to make a profit that we deem unfair to many people. I see no reasons why adjusting our tax laws or developing a UI or instituting UHC would be any different.

Yeaaah. And that's the problem. When you are talking about that in a conversation about poverty/low income, then it is a clear disparity in understanding the reality of poverty/low income life. No one in poverty/low income is making those choices. They buy the $5 good will jeans or they don't get jeans. They aren't even thinking about going to Disney. UI would not change any of this anyways. A UI would mean MORE business because more people would have enough breathing room in their finances to maybe make some better buying options. Because cheaper isn't always better or even cheaper in the long run, but it's often the only option. UI would be better bc more people would be able to make buying decisions.

Sooooo. If a hurricane is coming through and suddenly gas is $20 a gallon - well we may not like the increase and may not be able to buy the product, but oh well?

Some people view that as part and parcel of "finding themselves" and "exploring life" and that a "rebel phase" is a required part of growing up. I think that's a huge lump of BS.

Idk why anyone used 30/40k for UI. I sincerely doubt that is likely. It was not a number based on any actually UI projections.

Oh! See I need to know that! What makes a student eligible? How do I find out which counties do something similiar? Are you happy with the quality of instruction and the environment at her community college?

I have no choice about buying insulin unless you think just letting Dh die is a valid choice. I have no choice about educating my children unless you think illiteracy and unemployment are valid choices. I have no choice about my Dh having a smart phone if I want him to get a job or keep a job bc it's expected and those who don't don't get work. I have no genuine choice about buying many things, and those things eat up all of my income.

What do you mean by many opportunities? I see there's literally dozens of support groups and coops, but what about options for high schoolers to dual/concurrent enroll in community colleges or universities classroom courses? (Not interested in online programs.) How does that work?

We are looking at the jobs being in Irving, but we know that we are likely facing a drive as far out as Denton or Waxahachie. For cost and traffic reasons, we would prefer further FtWorth than Dallas proper.