Chase

I don't believe the opposite either. Poor people are still citizens and are thus required to pay taxes as rich people are. Especially if the government isn't going to hold itself fiscally responsible, then everyone needs to have skin in the game. I -personally- am a supporter of a fixed - or flat - income tax that is doable by most families around the poverty line but doesn't punish other Americans who happen to be better off with regards to the family coffers. government gets paid the poor are able to afford the loss the rich aren't expected to overcompensate simply because they have the resources to do so. Everyone survives. I'm no economist - but it would seem that poor people spend more than rich people because the amount of wealth is vastly different in either case, causing an illusion of inequity when it comes to spending specifically. The lower the figures, the larger the expenditure numbers seem to be and the less left over at the end of the day. The higher the figures, the smaller the expenditure numbers seem (even if the rich are paying the exact same amount!) and the bigger the safety net. On the contrary, YOU can't assume that lower class citizens are incapable of investing just because more time and assistance from others would be required. Why would anyone start with "millions of dollars" as a goal if they've never seen that kind of money in their lives? Hundreds of dollars on the other hand, is totally possible with a little hard work, budgeting and fiscal discipline. Then you start talking to investors that are partial to your network and think thousands. Millions is a lofty first goal for most people, yes. However, milestones under that are completely feasible and are probably more likely to be earned if you tried to do so instead of waste time picketing the government to give everyone the same wages despite having different jobs or provide free services and goods for you. Starting a business is a process for anyone - rich or poor. You know what would help rich people pay more for things? Taxes on consumption that apply to everyone. This idea hurts those that can't afford to be a consumer, but at least the rich are paying money and they aren't being unfairly expected to do so. Edit: if this comes off as hostile, Laggless - it's in reaction to being accused of only using one example (when I also included another one) and trying to use one example as to why the welfare system doesn't need increased funding. I talked about my real estate agent friend -and- states where people are being given essentially the same amount as minimum wage workers - for no effort - with extra benefits that those who make minimum wage and live completely off of it don't have. I've done a little more homework than you'd think, friend.

In America, welfare ranges from supplementary and encourages work to being something that is comfortably reliable for a single mother to add on top of her paycheck. For example, I know someone who is a real estate agent by day, stripper by night, and somehow still qualifies for stamps - and takes advantage of them freely. They use the stamps religiously - but for complete junk food. Late night sweet-tooth instances and dessert are 90 percent of the resources that family uses government assistance for. Money on the other hand is used on going out to eat to luxury items. The woman spends every weekend in Austin at the spa and drives an Escalade and always has the newest cell phone model. If you ask me - that's living on government assistance comfortably. There are people who are JUST a real estate agent that struggle to get by and support their families alone without making extra at night or even having assistance in the first place - but they manage. --- There are some states in America where welfare is distributed to families in the equivalency of someone holding a full time job - not counting the benefits of being a recipient (such as no mortgage or food figures) - so I would argue that the system is very inconsistent in the States and that while yes - the 1 percent at the top probably theoretically and probably literally "could" pay more - people probably literally "could" afford to borrow less at the same time. I don't get this idea of how the rich needs to pay more taxes than I do simply because they have the money to do so. If I'm paying taxes, and they are paying taxes, then it should be satisfactory enough. On the topic of sitting on money, the onus is on businesses to provide something worth spending the money on - not the one who doesn't want to waste their money.

All the Poor and Powerless: Tackling the Problem with Poverty and Living Difficulties Some of you have brought up the positions of workers with disabilities and single residents working on the minimum wage line full or overtime. This is a good segue into another issue, and I appreciate you guys for taking initiative. Understanding: While I do believe this is cherry-picking from several socialists are clamoring for graduated percentage-based taxation of wealthier people to cover a completely separate group of people - I can definitely understand where it becomes hard for those who fall near or below the poverty line and are working at the very least some equivalent of full-time. If you have a disability it's very likely your job pool becomes limited and that you do get stuck at the bottom due to limited ability. If you're working on the thin-ice of an entry-level position 40 hours a week you are probably unable to take too much more hours. Disconnect: Over the last five years much progress has been made on fair wages for those with disabilities in the United States and it's one of the issues that is actually remarkably bi-partisan. Fair work deserves equal pay, disabled or otherwise. It's gotten to the point where it's somewhat made additional funding from the government arbitrary and where the recipient has to list goods and services needed to treat or maintain their health in order to receive it. I would think - then - that it's equally possible for a disabled person to be fiscally responsible and help themselves at that point. I don't disagree with helping out those that need help in order to do their jobs (an earlier workers with disabilities act states that discrimination due to disability is prohibited and that the employer is responsible for accommodating disabled workers - that same act provides protection from discrimination after the hiring process - including promotions, meaning it's possible for the disabled to be overachieving and ambitious.) - For those without disabilities - the same holds true. You have to pay yourself first and be disciplined or anything that you are fighting for is counter-intuitive and selfish with regards to making more and leveling the field. Here's why - if you're getting help from SNAPS or Stamps or TANF or what-have-you, there's a high likelihood your burden is much lower than that of someone who doesn't receive government assistance and therefore instead of being irresponsible with the money you have from the job that is being held for recreational use - you can save and eventually wean yourself off of those programs - even if you don't get promoted or rewarded a raise. You can't argue for yourself if you're living paycheck-to-paycheck but are not having to actually pay your mortgage or your utilities or for your groceries. I'm not saying that being on welfare is a bad thing. It's being on welfare and not pulling yourself out of it to the point where you become dependent on it for extended amounts of time that it gets out of control. Verdict: This is where socialist ideas can be implemented into the model - and have been already. Providing medical assistance or aid for those who truly are unable to work is fine. Providing assistance to those who hold jobs or who are looking for jobs momentarily until living situations improve is fine. Living on welfare comfortably - in any case other than complete inability to work - is not fine. If it was, that's what I would want to do when I grow up - assuming the government learns how to be fiscally responsible on my behalf. As you can all probably see - that's not reality. There's not a need to increase spending in many of those areas wide-scale in my opinion - but that doesn't make a wish to do so misguided. --- Nick, I disagree with you on what the minimum wage should be, because the cost of living and covering expenses varies from person-to-person and family-to-family. There's too many variables in play for the minimum wage to be consistently the minimum required to live and therefore the minimum wage would depend on the financial aspects of the working person's portfolio. That is a back-breaker for small business owners and people that are trying to pay people for hours worked and quality of said work already. If I can't ask the government to do that for me, my friend who works at a family owned donut shop in town can't ask that family for that kind of wage. I don't think that's a word, Laggless, but I only confided with Google to verify. I don't look down on welfare recipients unless they are living quite well without having to even try to obtain a job and are able to work one. Especially if they are being fiscally negligent. I'll check out Adam Ruins Everything.

I'm actually not well versed in the TCG - but things that I feel should be carded. "Rare candy" the Grand Hall PokeSnax Victoria (opponent throws all energy cards in your hand into the discard pile - becuase Victoria is bad news.) Solaris' Garchomp Street Rat Andreas

First of all - this is very clearly not a "shut the f**k up socialism" thread - it's an arm's length understanding thread - where I agree that "yes" there are problems, but that there may be more than one way to fix them and that the government isn't the only avenue for solution at times. I am a capitalist because I believe that: Money you earn or inherent through legal means is yours and I have no business claiming you are obligated to give more than others. Competition if done correctly lowers prices for goods and services. Capitalism better rewards innovation and encourages employees to be creative and inventive. Fiscal responsibility - in part, Erick - is a personal way to help making ends meet and even help you have money left over after doing so. Workers should strive for promotion and stake their claims by working their way up the ladder as opposed to taking money from others. I -personally- don't agree with Teddy Roosevelt. Minimum wage should be figures that adequately match the time and type of work given by the employee - and in my job as a recreation leader - I should NOT be making house payments, paying for my own healthcare and insurance and food and whatnot based on the type of work I am in and the hours I get. I don't work enough hours nor do I have to really give much of an effort to justify being able to make that kind of wage. This is further driven home by the fact that entry level jobs are jobs kids use to get spending money as opposed to highly trained competition in a specific field. At the bottom level, employers are looking for something that makes employees different from the standard "Hi, I want money so I can take my girl out to dinner and impress her twice a month." as opposed to someone that has all the accolades or a stellar attitude or a fantastic work experience record. Yes, unfortunately, there ARE people having to make ends meet in those positions, but I don't feel like my job playing Hoop-and-stick with your kids for three hours a school day should make all of my ends meet. "Living wages" are earned by holding multiple entry-level positions or by holding a full time job. Once you meet those requirements the goal is to move up the payroll -and- save money when you can. At the individual level, this is absolutely feasible and opens more opportunities. --- My solution to workers not paying you adequate wages is case-by-case. If the difference is egregious, you should be looking for another employer. If it isn't, then you can save and eliminate the deficit by being smart with your money. If you're a woman or part of a minority and you know you're being shafted, look for a competing business in the same field and apply while still on the job that you know will care about fixing the wage gap. Not all employers are opportunists.

The cool thing to do if you're an American millennial these days is to eat, sleep, hang out with your friends, and figure out how to apply the ideas of Karl Marx to American economics in order to topple the bourgeoisie and make the ground level for everyone. I may be a millennial - but I am certainly a capitalist. Background: I make just above minimum wage as a government employee. I work for my city as a recreation leader and essentially get payed to peg your children with dodgeballs, help them with their homework, and give you the opportunity to work way more hours a day then I get to. My entire household works - one who also works for the government as a special education teacher, while another works the drive-thru line at Taco Bell. While the teacher only gets paid once a month, the rec leader and the fast-food employee benefit from being white individuals, with the rec leader being a male. Both of those workers have a father who "occasionally" shows up in their lives to provide financial support. He works as a defense attorney and owns his own law practice. I am - on average - 54% privileged. A number that can be considered higher than most despite having lived through divorce and having spent a majority of my life living paycheck-to-paycheck. What's the point of this thread?: The title of the thread starts with "Arm's Length Understanding" - meaning I am going to pick a few talking points the young "Democratic Socialist" crowd clamors over and "understand" where they are coming from using my background - and follow up by providing why I feel capitalism either -can- or -can't- address those concerns. --- #FightFor15 - Living Wages Need Only Apply Understanding: Teddy Roosevelt was the first president to state that the minimum wage should be one the individual can LIVE on. There are many people in this country who work low-end jobs and are doing so with the aspirations of "living" and even "raising a family" on the mediocre wages they earn. In the capitalism economic structure, everything is centered on the notion of competition. Higher quality foods tend to be more expensive than processed foods. Medicine is a thing prices fluctuate on. Clothing is at it's cheapest like cars are at their cheapest - when someone else has already worn them. Essentially - there definitely is an issue with unchecked capitalism on the side of the impoverished and lower middle classes. How to attack the minimum wage WITHOUT government interference: A golden rule in fiscal responsibility is to "pay YOURSELF first." For some, the key word may be "yourself" - as people are almost trained to throw their paycheck at their bills, their utilities, or in the case of many people my age - the things that you want because you don't worry about paying bills in the first place. For others, the key word may be "first" as they genuinely ARE one of those people that are having to live on the minimum wage. It is never impossible to save money when following that rule. Even if we're talking about pennies and nickels, I promise you, it will add up later. Verdict: The minimum wage CAN afford to be raised - but it doesn't need to be a living wage and it definitely doesn't need to come with an economic system overhaul. As someone who falls pretty close to making that much, I understand that it's pretty tight - but the government isn't responsible for paying "everyone" - and it doesn't even need to pay me more. Later on I'll cover other topics - but I don't have all day to put them in one post.

This reminds me of Me!Me!Me!... Let me start off by saying that - having played a video game as of late that has influenced my stance on this area in terms of understanding - I don't think it's insane to fall in love with a fictional character. I -do- think it's a bit questionable whenever the following happens regarding husbandowaifuism (I'll be using waifu by default as I prefer women): You think that your waifu actually feels the same way about you in many instances when you can't directly interact with them (as in manga and anime) You think that your waifu is worth more than actual people - specifically ALL actual people. You cause yourself harm over the obvious fact that your waifu is not capable of providing you a real lover's experience. You cause OTHERS harm over the obvious fact that your waifu is not capable of providing you a real lover's experience. You personify your waifu to the point where you create social media representations of them. This one is probably the worst iteration of it because if you actually stand in place of a fake entity, you take advantage of OTHER people who may also hold similar feelings for the character and it becomes a multi-personal disaster where many people are being abused at once. I know a thing or two about deceit. This one is the most troublesome. --- That being said, I don't think it's very shocking at all that this is remotely a phenomenon. I read earlier today that "sex-robots" would eventually replace actual human partners by 2025 - and waifuism in Japan is induced by the fact that many men in the country work staggering hours and don't have time for commitments with human women, and thus dating simulators are actually fairly common and serviceable (even to the point of sexual intercourse) where time is very much limited. I think people do need be more like you though - and realize that love is something that is always, always, ALWAYS a two-way street and that most of the time requires someone to "actually" love you back instead of giving you limited responses and existing only to please you. In my opinion, love is best exemplified by sacrifice and giving the other party a choice. Most waifus aren't going to make meaningful choices - and those that can still have issues in the reality department to fix.

RuneScape....I've never come close to even being an elite player in 'Scape. :C

Radomus isn't the scrappy - but he's definitely a candidate for base breaker for some of those reasons you've listed. Tartar - you said something about a "vocal minority" - but I can't help but think that even if it's not a fifty-fifty split - the base is still broken if a minority even exists.

Tom, I hope you're having a good one down there, friend. Thanks for continuing to be kind and yet objective. You know I enjoy a good spar. Also, keep your filthy hands off of Charlotte. She's mine. Hunter. Happy Birthday.

Lexi, One of the things that I think whenever I read something from you, be it between the two of us or out in the open, is that you're living proof that nobody is a mistake. At the risk of sounding incredibly mushy - you're one of the people on this board that gives me reassurance about people in general. Not because you're always happy or that you're something nobody really is, but that you're one of the most genuine people here. If you have an issue with something, regardless of what side of the fence or if the opposition is trendy or what have you, you voice it. And you've fought harder than many people who say they will. I don't know if you've found yourself, or if you were even looking in the first place - but the you that everyone else sees is an inspiration. Best wishes, Hunter.

From what I think I've heard - Awakening "allows" you to grind up supports and characters between missions through skirmishes - as Fates does in the Birthright and Revelations routes. Doing so is most likely optional then.

......Ah, it's always nice to make progress in Conquest. It had been a while since I'd attempted my Hard run and I decided I wanted to through with a different Corrin than before - and this time, I'm a Chapter 10 survivor. How I did it? Mess Hall bonuses. The issue with Chapter 10 is that it's very early in the game and your Mess Hall was likely built at least one chapter ago. You may not even have characters running it, relegating either the Troubadour or the Lancer Chef duty and also dealing with only getting to use one ingredient. However, even limited, the Mess Hall is a fantastic tool because it allows you to pick a stat of your choice to give a boost to, while also providing a bonus stat increase (most of the time) depending on the flair of the dish. With the infamous 10Defend chapter, Defense is a helpful skill to boost. TONICS. Tonics are an absolute blessing in Fates in general - and they allow for a character to boost a particular stat if you purchase them on top of other boosts like the mess hall boost, weapon and pair up bonuses, and skill boosts. My go-to poison of choice for this chapter? Speed, Strength, and of course Defense. Trial and Error - In my sitting, I was to only pressed to replay the round ONCE - and in the first play of the sitting I was able to identify which turn the Hoshidans began causing my forces to bend - meaning instead of retreating I stood my ground too long. The result? I actually BEAT the chapter while losing Nyx, Niles, and Elise. That was the first time finding success, and I was able to adjust the second time playing the chapter to make it out without losses. Interesting things about Chapter 10 Conquest with Hard as your difficulty? Well....There are not many units with skills in this chapter due to the majority of them being re-enforcement units. However, there is more units each wave than in Normal. For example, the Normal map starts with two Spear Fighters and ONE Ninja, where the Hard map starts with an additional Ninja, that poses a threat to Niles if you leave him on the Ballista following the first Ninja. Hinata and Oboro actually charge you in Hard (two turns after Takumi turns the tide), whereas they only direct traffic in Normal. That was actually scary as where Hinata is threatening if you try to initiate with him, Oboro's Nohrian Enmity can be a problem for defensive minded players (like 100% of players in this chapter.) Normally, both if not just Oboro fall to Camilla in my runs, but the amount of Pegasus Knights in the chapter and Oboro's additional Seal Strength had Camilla steering clear this time around to protect her ability to one-shot other units. New things this time around. OH MY GOD HAITAKA IS AWESOME. Rally Defense is an amazing rally to have on the final two turns. 10/10 Captured Unit there. Selena - paired up with Silas - is MUCH more effective than having Silas take on the western chokepoint by himself (which he CAN) and it also starts a beautiful relationship......... Possibly fringey-NSFW ish?.....it's not the image it's the language used.

Radomus and Cain have had their days, friend - but I don't think the community usually stoops to the point of crying about characters under Ame's nose. I will give you the fact that my basis has been on speculation threads about which leader is going to betray us regarding the former and the 'What I don't like about Reborn' thread for the latter. El......people like El? And Cal is someone that I haven't seen much discourse on at all, as you have said. Addendum: It should be known that the defining traits of a "Base Breaker" is very broad in nature. It's not held to a specific in the thread here - and if we're going to have an incredible amount of morality angles all at once then the only consensus definition can be "One group hates the character, the other likes the character, there isn't very many people on the outside who are just on the fence." Many characters will qualify for that one - no matter how "precise" we want it to be.

Randomus is DEFINITELY a base breaker - because the few people that DON'T like him are seemingly very suspicious of his real motives. There isn't middle ground there. You either love his aloofness and presentation - or you don't trust the guy. Period.

Meloetta-P's the biggest shame of all the Pokemon because there's not a story reason or gimmick behind it that is intentional. I truly believe GameFreak had wanted Melo-P to be really good, and yet it's held back by the way you access it's alternate form in more than one way.

You don't remember the card you gave me in your little member appreciation thread?

Best wishes, Ody.

I would like to nominate Cain as a base breaker. Hear me out. Cain is probably loved by most of the fan base because he's comic relief done right in this game. Out of left field and completely aware of real human depravity - which is why his innuendos are hilarious to the majority of us. ...and then he gets a little heavy-handed with it. He'll make you laugh at first, and then you find yourself going "Bro...Bro.....okay, bro. You gotta stop." I'm not saying he -should- make the cut because I'm fairly certain he may be a character the people who get tired of his consistency -do- find some middle ground with, but if Cain is going to maintain his pace for the rest of the game, he could become a considerably bigger base breaker in the future. ...Also, the only thing better than Victoria redeeming herself in 16 is being the person Ame kills off in 16. So yes, she's definitely the Scrappy. Edit: threw the wrong character under the bus.....that character has already had her share.

Alright, I've ONLY played Fates - so my list will have a few honorable mentions to cover what I know about other characters in the series: Alm Ike Marth Lucina Ricken Micaiah Gaius There - now for my top ten favorite characters in Fire Emblem: Fates 10. Benny - Knight (Conquest) 9. Shura - Adventurer (all routes) 8. Saizo - Ninja (Birthright) 7. Oboro - Spear Fighter (Birthright) 6. Camilla - Malig Knight (Conquest) 5. Leo - Dark Knight (Conquest) 4. Severa/Selena - Mercenary (Awakening/Conquest) 3. Effie - Knight (Conquest) 2. Charlotte - Fighter (Conquest) 1. Silas - Cavalier (all routes) Fates honorable mentions: Hinoka, Takumi, Nyx, Odin, Laslow, Jakob, Azura

You're probably one to something about assimilation in the sense that it's not okay to reject or cast out our own individual identities for the sake of a group in full - but I think "assimilation" also gets those negative connotations unfairly as well. Talking about legal immigration for example, the most confrontational part of that kind of assimilation is forcing someone to learn a different language before they can enter a country. Most of the rest of that conditioning is psychological (pledging allegiance, passing a citizenship test) as opposed to replacement of values. The goal of assimilation with regards to social constructs is that the individual GAINS the group's constructs, not LOSES their own - ideally. --- With Pence and Huckabee it's important to recognize that they are politicians before they are conservatives. Right, Left, or in the middle, political figures are beholden to groups. That's just part of the game. When you have the support of a group, that group will help you get elected to the office you are hoping to win. Just because men like Pence and Huckabee garner support from the religious right - it definitely doesn't make them "good shepherds" of the Gospel themselves - nor does it mean all Christians are buying that Trump is a better alternative to Clinton (With regards to Trump, what often goes unreported is his stark approval for same-sex marriage - much to the chagrin of the people that are supposed to vote for him in many cases.) It's also important to recognize the true nature of something before you call it "outdated". It doesn't take rocket science to understand that most of the world is heterosexual and that homosexuals happen to be a minority group. Also, the majority of the planet believes in some form of higher power than humanity. It's certainly NOT that tradition is outdated - it's that liberal social issues are "trending". Finally, what you said about Davis may be true as that's what the media will have you believe about her actions. The reality of the situation isn't that Davis was being intolerant of homosexuality because she hates homosexuals. Her personal belief system dictates that marriage is reserved for a man and a woman - and therefore it would be a logical "farce" to issue a homosexual couple a marriage license for her. Therefore, she refused on the basis of her faith and her philosophical approach in exercising it as opposed to personal dislike of the parties opposite her. I think we can all agree that her job at the state office isn't the best fit for her if exercising her beliefs was that big of a deal - but that doesn't automatically make her actions hateful. People like to throw the word "bigot" around in such instances to further their agenda on the other side. --- Here's where you're right though. Today's world is one where liberalism - particularly "progressivism" - is the trend, and traditionalism is the opposing force. It just so happens that many conservatives are in absolute denial as to what's going on when it comes to things like "New Atheism" and the sudden importance of issues such as homosexuality and gender identity - things that to them have been set in stone since the world was created. It's understandable that they would push back for "the good 'ole days" when their Scripture had everything laid out for following legislature to mirror. This is where the book of Revelation is important. If we truly believe the Bible is "God's Word" then this Earth that we live on has a shelf life - and if we were to pair that up with modern science we are only affirmed twice over in that regard. In other words, fighting for so-called values and rebirth on a dying world is a lost cause. It would be better then - to focus our efforts in loving others as Christ asked us to.