Now that MLB is back...does anyone care?

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I'm not rich but I save my money too. That's a bad thing?







I bolded the part where you advocate stealing from people simply because they have a lot.



If people build wealth by obeying laws, playing by the rules, then what they have belongs to them, and you and others need to learn to keep your greedy* hands off it.



*greed: Wanting to take what others have, because it's easier than earning it yourself.

Redistribution doesn't mean theft. It can be a wide range of ideas. But let's call it theft for the sake of your argument.

How come individuals made more "real wealth" in the 1960s than they do now? My generation is supposed to be the first to make less money than their parents. I would argue that the wealthy for 60 years has redistributed wealth to the top percentage of earners. Therefore they have literally been stealing for a hell of a long time from just about 99% of the population. And if that has been you, tsk tsk.

Now, moving beyond "theft", redistribution can be something as easy as businesses paying a higher share of health insurance instead of passing it on to employees. That's not theft. Redistribution could be increasing taxes to reduce college costs. I wouldn't consider that stealing. States used to pay a lot more in higher education funding, so really that would be returning to previous levels of funding.

Do you want more examples?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by todeen

Redistribution doesn't mean theft. It can be a wide range of ideas. But let's call it theft for the sake of your argument.

How come individuals made more "real wealth" in the 1960s than they do now? My generation is supposed to be the first to make less money than their parents. I would argue that the wealthy for 60 years has redistributed wealth to the top percentage of earners. Therefore they have literally been stealing for a hell of a long time from just about 99% of the population. And if that has been you, tsk tsk.

Explain how the wealthy redistributed wealth to the top earners. Are you saying wealthy people earned more money than less wealthy people?

That's rather self-evident, isn't it? Of course wealthy people earn (transfer wealth) more than non-wealthy people.

And what's that final comment about? And if that has been you, tsk tsk. You're thinking people who are successful need to be admonished for it? In your world, starting a company that grows huge, employs thousands of people, produces things people want and voluntarily pay for... is a bad thing?

Originally Posted by todeen

Now, moving beyond "theft", redistribution can be something as easy as businesses paying a higher share of health insurance instead of passing it on to employees. That's not theft.

Businesses view the compensation they pay their employees as one number. For instance, to an employer, paying someone $80,000 in salary + $10,000 in benefits = paying $70,000 in salary + $20,000 in benefits.

Some people, like you apparently, would prefer the smaller salary and bigger benefits package. I would prefer the higher salary, smaller benefits, and the ability to then get a high deductible health plan, and cover basic stuff like checkups, lab work, etc. out of pocket.

Originally Posted by todeen

Redistribution could be increasing taxes to reduce college costs. I wouldn't consider that stealing. States used to pay a lot more in higher education funding, so really that would be returning to previous levels of funding.

So, two guys graduate high school the same year. One wants to go to an over-priced party school and drink beer for 4 years. The other goes to work to support his family. In your mind, the working guy should be paying higher taxes to subsidize the college brat.

Originally Posted by todeen

Do you want more examples?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

No. I see where you're coming from. Other people becoming mega-successful is bad. Sitting on your butt, watching others become successful, then expecting society (politicians) to take their productivity and "redistribute" it to people like you, is good.

When somebody else makes money, it does not hurt you. It obviously makes you angry and jealous, but it doesn't hurt you. I think you should spend more energy trying to improve your own situation honestly, and spend less time eyeing the wealth of others, trying to find a way to grab some of it for yourself.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by todeen

Redistribution doesn't mean theft.

It inherently is. Redistributing wealth is taking from some people, and giving what belonged to those people before the seizure to other people. Unless you think that everyone having their wealth taken away supports the seizure of their property, redistribution is theft.

Anyone who would like to redistribute their wealth may feel free to put their collections where their mouths are and mail me some of their pre-war cards. As a poor collector who can only afford low-grade beaters of players who were mostly not very good, I am in need. PM for shipping address.

[todeen]

Again, I don't think redistribution of wealth is theft. I do think it's unethical, but it's not theft. My tsk tsk comment was in reference to that. I'm also not socialist. I'm pro capitalism. My family and my life has been greatly influenced by capitalism. Redistribution of wealth is a very capitalist endeavor.

Now, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The wealthy have been redistributing and consolidating wealth for 60 years. Real wages / real wealth is not higher than that of the late 60s. If the wealthy have been able to change monetary laws, reduce taxes, and create stagnant wages, than the middle class has every right to undo these changes. The wealthy have reduced or eliminated taxes on capital gains, estate transfers, and taxes on wealth above certain percentages, and this has hurt the USA. We have stopped investing in infrastructure, and we wonder why we are about to be passed by China for most powerful economy.

Next, it is a false narrative to believe that taking lower benefits will increase your wages. Both benefits and wages have fallen since the 60s, creating less real wealth. Wages have not kept up with inflation, so middle class workers have less buying power today than 60 years ago. By stagnating wages, and introducing gig jobs (private contractor economy - Uber, Amazon deliveries, etc), CEOs are inflating profits to create dividends and other capital gains. Since the majority of stock wealth is possessed by the wealthiest citizens, these dividends are going directly into private accounts rather than strengthening the company. Further, private equity firms have learned how to buy a company (Toys R Us, Sears, etc) and stack the company with debt, while at the same time withdrawing profits from the company. The company then goes bankrupt, and the private equity firm walks away with the wealth, leaving behind debt and jobless employees to be sorted out by others. Pensions are turned over to Pension Guarantee, and the private equity firms score another victory.

No, redistribution of wealth is not theft. If it was, the wealthy wouldn't have been able to do what they've done. What the wealthy has done is completely legal and supports capitalism. Changing tax and income laws, reducing benefits and wages, getting rid of matching 401k payments, leeching wealth from companies, increasing part time work, increasing contract workers, and reducing full time employees is unethical, but it's legal, and it's not theft.

And it's every bit fair game for middle class workers to play by the same rules and begin to advocate for these changes to be undone. Undoing these changes will turn the stream of income slightly away from the wealthy and redistribute wealth back to the middle and lower class.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[packs]

I think it helps to understand what redistribution of wealth means and to understand it's already in practice in every aspect of your life. It is not theft, it is government policy. When you get divorced and your assets are split, that is a redistribution of wealth that takes place on the individual level you’re talking about. But that is not how wealth is redistributed on a public scale. We have a progressive income tax, that's redistribution. We have charities you can donate to. That's redistribution of wealth too. Medicare is a redistribution of wealth. Things like public WiFi, public education and public libraries are a redistribution of wealth. Museums are a redistribution of wealth.

In political circles you will hear people talk about theft. But in your practical life it seems to be more or less accepted as the cost of doing business. It also leads to a lot of good things for people (like a free public education, being able to access the internet or going to the doctor).

[Cliff Bowman]

I can’t say their names, but NP of CA has a net worth of $120 million, MW of VA has a net worth of $90 million, RB of CT has a net worth of $70, DF of CA has a net worth of $58 million, EW of MA has a net worth of $12 million. Does any anyone here who is not naive honestly believe that they are going to pass laws that will take their personal wealth or their billionaires donors personal wealth with no loopholes or havens to protect their own money? I have no doubt that will certainly try to clean out their wealthy enemies as soon as they take power in January but they will never pass laws that will allow their own wealth or their donors wealth to be touched.

[packs]

A city's budget is a redistribution of wealth. Every city has one and every city passes one. It decides how your tax dollars are reinvested in the city. I don’t think it’s theft if people who have more money pay more in taxes that then benefit other people in the form of public services.

[Cliff Bowman]

What does that have to do with taking wealth from liberal millionaires and billionaires and giving it to the less fortunate? Do you believe NP and MW are going to allow their own personal wealth to be confiscated? Hell no they aren’t.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

What does that have to do with taking wealth from liberal millionaires and billionaires and giving it to the less fortunate? Do you believe NP and MW are going to allow their own personal wealth to be confiscated? Hell no they aren’t.

It has nothing to do with it, which is the point. I don't know what your personal concepts of wealth redistribution are but there is nothing about the practice that relates to taking something from one individual and giving it to another individual, except in personal matters between two people (like in divorce). The vision you have of someone reaching into someone else's pockets and giving it to a third person is not what happens in practice. And a fear of wealth redistribution is unfounded because as I've pointed out, you are surrounded by wealth redistribution every day.

What you're talking about are taxes, something rich people have fought since there were taxes.

[Cliff Bowman]

Oprah Winfrey, Bill Maher, Jay Z, Michael Moore, LeBron James, Al Gore, Michael Jordan, Bill Clinton, Steven Spielberg, and countless others are either multi multimillionaires or billionaires, should their wealth be confiscated?

[HRBAKER]

Really don't care at all if they play this year.

[the 'stache]

Hell yes, I care. It's Major League Baseball. And while all the off-the-field stuff baffles me (millionaires and billionaires not able to sit down, and reach a compromise on how much richer they will all be, while the average American worries if the cost of a treatment for a virus will bankrupt them), and angers me, it's still baseball. I love the sport. I wish it were 162 games being played while our country was not divided, with people suffering and dying. With brutality against individuals because of their skin color on full display. That's not our reality, right now, and it may not be for a while.

We need to try and find anything we can that makes life better, even if it's just a few hours a week. Baseball will serve as a welcome respite from the suffering. If I can turn on a game, and not think about the negatives for a few hours, I'll find a little peace. Next Wednesday, I'll sign up for MLB.tv, and get ready for opening day.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by packs

It has nothing to do with it, which is the point. I don't know what your personal concepts of wealth redistribution are but there is nothing about the practice that relates to taking something from one individual and giving it to another individual, except in personal matters between two people (like in divorce). The vision you have of someone reaching into someone else's pockets and giving it to a third person is not what happens in practice. And a fear of wealth redistribution is unfounded because as I've pointed out, you are surrounded by wealth redistribution every day.

What you're talking about are taxes, something rich people have fought since there were taxes.

Literally EVERY example of wealth distribution you gave is false.
A city budget for instance, is an allocation of funds generated through taxation.

According to Wikipedia: "The distribution of wealth is a comparison of the wealth of various members or groups in a society. It shows one aspect of economic inequality or economic heterogeneity"

Does that sound like things you mentioned as wealth distribution? Of course not.
I'm not trying to be rude, but reading your comments, I don't think you really understand any of this.

And your last sentence again points out your bias against the rich... so the poor LOVE taxes and never fight them??????? Hilarious

[packs]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

Literally EVERY example of wealth distribution you gave is false.
A city budget for instance, is an allocation of funds generated through taxation.

According to Wikipedia: "The distribution of wealth is a comparison of the wealth of various members or groups in a society. It shows one aspect of economic inequality or economic heterogeneity"

Does that sound like things you mentioned as wealth distribution? Of course not.
I'm not trying to be rude, but reading your comments, I don't think you really understand any of this.

And your last sentence again points out your bias against the rich... so the poor LOVE taxes and never fight them??????? Hilarious

Income inequality and the redistribution of wealth is a public issue, not a private one. When people talk about redistributing wealth, it's for public services, which are included in a city budget. Everything I said is true and an example of public redistribution of wealth, which is what we're talking about.

Nobody is saying that if you have a lot of money and I don't, you should write me personally a check from your bank account.

In practice, wealth redistribution on the public level would include funneling more funding into schools in low income areas so that students in these schools have access to the same equipment and same educational tools as students in high income areas. That is the perfect example of wealth redistribution and bridging income inequality.

What I said about the rich and taxes has nothing to do with bias. This country has a progressive income tax.

[packs]

Double post.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by packs

Income inequality and the redistribution of wealth is a public issue, not a private one. When people talk about redistributing wealth, it's for public services, which are included in a city budget. Everything I said is true and an example of public redistribution of wealth, which is what we're talking about.

Nobody is saying that if you have a lot of money and I don't, you should write me personally a check from your bank account.

In practice, wealth redistribution on the public level would include funneling more funding into schools in low income areas so that students in these schools have access to the same equipment and same educational tools as students in high income areas. That is the perfect example of wealth redistribution and bridging income inequality.

You still don't get it....

If you allocate more money for one area, funds have to be taken from other areas.
Why do schools in low income areas have less than schools in high income areas to begin with? The answer is obvious.. the people that live in those areas contribute less than the people in the high income areas, hence, they have less.
So what you want is for people with more money to fund the people with less money... correct?

By the same token, and what you would like to see, is those with less income having the same as the people with more income, but they'll contribute much less to get it.

Bottom line, you can delude yourself all you want with spurious logic and left-wing rhetoric, the truth is, it's stealing from one group to give to another. Period.
And this is coming from a liberal...

.... yeah, that's fair.

[packs]

The people you're talking about are children. They can't be held responsible for their finances. When NYC went to distance learning during the pandemic, they quickly encountered a problem. Not every student has a computer and not every family had the internet. What did the city do? Money was set aside to provide every student who needed a computer with one and the city continues to work on providing internet access. The city is doing this because students are entitled to an education.

There is no taking from someone else. If a high income school has already provided its students with a computer, why would they need funds to buy a second computer for its students? It wouldn't. So that money goes to a school who does.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by packs

The people you're talking about are children. They can't be held responsible for their finances. When NYC went to distance learning during the pandemic, they quickly encountered a problem. Not every student has a computer and not every family had the internet. What did the city do? Money was set aside to provide every student who needed a computer with one and the city continues to work on providing internet access. The city is doing this because students are entitled to an education.

There is no taking from someone else. If a high income school has already provided its students with a computer, why would they need funds to buy a second computer for its students? It wouldn't. So that money goes to a school who does.

There is ALWAYS taking from someone else. Funds don't magically appear and are never limitless. If NYC "set aside" money as you mentioned... where did it come from?? SOMEONE is paying for that.

You also ignore why the high income school had that computer to begin with... they contributed more. It's the same reason the low income school doesn't have that computer, they've contributed less. So even with your example, you end up with people getting something they didn't work or pay for.

And there SHOULD BE "income inequality". The United States is a capitalist country, everyone makes different amounts of money based on NUMEROUS factors. As an example, people DO NOT work equally, invest equally or create equally, they are NOT equally talented or able, nor do they all share the same intelligence... so in what deluded world should they EARN equally and all have the same?

The United States is THE bastion of opportunity and success where ANYONE can improve their life and make something more of themselves if they so choose.
The absolute truth is that success and well being reside with the individual and their choices, not society.

[packs]

That's simply not true. There was no computer tax on NYC residents. The money was already collected and that's how the city chose to spend it, which is what redistribution is all about. Where did that money come from? The city's budget.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Everyone in this country today has the opportunity to become a millionaire no matter your race, your background, your circumstances or whatever.

Let me recommend a book to you. It’s called “Everyday Millionaires” by Chris Hogan. He has another book too titled “Retire Inspired” which I read a few months ago.

In “Everyday Millionaires,” Chris debunks all the myths that are associated with millionaires such as: millionaires make a lot of money, millionaires inherited all their wealth, millionaires went to prestigious universities, etc. None of this is true based on Chris’ study of over 10,000 millionaires - the largest study ever of millionaires. These are only society’s preconceived notions.

The truth is, you probably wouldn’t recognize most millionaires based on the typical stereotypes. Most millionaires don’t flash a lot of cash, they don’t live in expensive homes, they don’t drive expensive cars, they don’t buy expensive clothes, etc. The Everyday Millionaire is probably your next-door neighbor, your co-worker or maybe even a family member - people you would never suspect of being a millionaire.

In his book, Chris tells you how anybody can become a millionaire by building wealth, and it’s not hard. There is no magical secret. But first, you have to understand the difference between getting rich and building wealth. Most people want to get rich. They want it now - either by some get rich quick scheme, winning the lottery, risky fad investments, an inheritance from some rich uncle they never knew about, etc. - they don’t want to put in any time or effort, and unfortunately this is why most people never acquire millionaire status.

By contrast, most millionaires Chris studied built their wealth over a long period of time by investing in their employer-sponsored retirement plan (401k, 403b, etc.). Did you know that if you invest only $100 a month @ 12% interest from the time you’re age 25 to age 65 (40 years), that will make you a millionaire? Do that math. If you’re in your early to mid-twenties and you start investing that amount RIGHT NOW (or even more if you can do it), you are guaranteed to be a millionaire (and maybe even a multi-millionaire) by the time you retire. And that’s not even factoring in a company match (assuming your employer offers a match). There, I just showed you how to become a millionaire. Sure, it will take some time, but anyone is capable of doing it.

Anyway, the book has been a great inspiration to me and shows that anybody can do it. Chris shows how to overcome all the excuses and the victim mentality by factual statistics through his research.

Unfortunately, in today’s world, especially with the youth, their motto is “fake it to you make it.” But by trying to look rich and keeping up with the Jones’s, you’ll never will make it. Newsflash: The Jones’s may have all the stuff you want - fancy house, nice cars, fine clothes - but they’re flat broke, drowning in credit card debt and eventually they're headed for bankruptcy.

If you don't retire a millionaire, that is YOUR FAULT and nobody else's!

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by packs

That's simply not true. There was no computer tax on NYC residents. The money was already collected and that's how the city chose to spend it, which is what redistribution is all about. Where did that money come from? The city's budget.

Yeah, the city's budget... where the people who have more, contributed more.
And those people who contributed less... now get the benefits of those who contributed more.

Again, sounds fair!

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

You still don't get it....

If you allocate more money for one area, funds have to be taken from other areas.
Why do schools in low income areas have less than schools in high income areas to begin with? The answer is obvious.. the people that live in those areas contribute less than the people in the high income areas, hence, they have less.
So what you want is for people with more money to fund the people with less money... correct?

By the same token, and what you would like to see, is those with less income having the same as the people with more income, but they'll contribute much less to get it.

Bottom line, you can delude yourself all you want with spurious logic and left-wing rhetoric, the truth is, it's stealing from one group to give to another. Period.
And this is coming from a liberal...

.... yeah, that's fair.

I always envisioned an America where a basic level of life is provided: education, fire and police, roads get paved. If a portion of my taxes are actually being used so the poorer neighborhoods around me can have a city pool or a library, then I feel that I'm keeping up my duty as a member of this society. To use the term "stealing" is offensive to me. It's beyond the debate of how much of my taxes go to whichever pot. We are such a low-tax country, yet we all want Uncle Sam to take care of us in our own way, but it's "stealing" if I don't get back, in some form, every penny I put in??

So if in our society, the "haves" and the "have nots" only get money for education that they can raise in their own district, Bottom line: poor districts will always be poor, and they will keep raising poorly educated students. And what's going to happen to the "haves?" The answer is obvious: they will be able to put more resources into making their educational system even better. All of which leads to that great promise: Make America Great Again for People With Money.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

Yeah, the city's budget... where the people who have more, contributed more.
And those people who contributed less... now get the benefits of those who contributed more.

Again, sounds fair!

Do you support the National School Lunch Program? It provides no cost or reduced cost meals to students in public or non-profit schools who otherwise can't afford them. Again, this is a clear example of the redistribution of wealth. I personally don't think any student should go hungry. If you feel like a student who can't afford lunch doesn't get to eat lunch, it's not a perspective I agree with.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by packs

Do you support the National School Lunch Program? It provides no cost or reduced cost meals to students in public or non-profit schools who otherwise can't afford them. Again, this is a clear example of the redistribution of wealth. I personally don't think any student should go hungry. If you feel like a student who can't afford lunch doesn't get to eat lunch, it's not a perspective I agree with.

If you feel that anyone who has less than others should automatically be given more, and that the people who have more are solely responsible for that, it is not a perspective that I agree with.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

If you feel that anyone who has less than others should automatically be given more, and that the people who have more are solely responsible for that, it is not a perspective that I agree with.

It's not automatic. It's practical as I described above with the laptop program. A student who already has a computer doesn't need to be provided with one. There is a practical reason a student without a laptop would receive one; so they can participate in the public education they are entitled to. The cost is supplanted by the tax revenue everyone pays into, not just some people.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by packs

It's not automatic. It's practical as I described above with the laptop program. A student who already has a computer doesn't need to be provided with one. There is a practical reason a student without a laptop would receive one; so they can participate in the public education they are entitled to. The cost is supplanted by the tax revenue everyone pays into, not just some people.

It's funny that people are entitled to an education according to you, but people aren't entitled to the wealth they've earned, as you want to redistribute it.
Can you honestly not grasp the hypocrisy of any of this?

And not everyone PAYS into the system the same, but you want everyone to HAVE the same... why not just be honest and admit you want socialism?

[packs]

Every example I've provided is current government policy. And nothing about redistribution has anything to do with taking anyone's individual wealth. We are talking about how public funds are spent, which is money already collected.

Public education as a right is not my personal philosophy. This right is part of the 14th amendment.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by packs

Every example I've provided is current government policy. And nothing about redistribution has anything to do with taking anyone's individual wealth. We are talking about how public funds are spent, which is money already collected.

Public education as a right is not my personal philosophy. This right is part of the 14th amendment.

NOTHING you mentioned is "redistribution of wealth"... absolutely NOTHING.
NOT ONE THING
Allocating tax dollars is NOT, and spending public money is NOT redistribution of wealth.
You are clueless as to the actual meaning. I can't help you.... I tried.

[Huysmans]

Bottom line Packs, it's not that I'm in disagreement with you regarding government programs and helping those who need help. I am NOT in favour of putting the burden on the rich, whatsoever. Redistribution of wealth is taking from the rich in my opinion, but we obviously won't agree. Those who volunteer it, good on them.

As a lifelong liberal, I've come to the conclusion that people need to be responsible for themselves, and as liberals, we're never honest in regards to how many people really have themselves to blame for their situation. Not all, but many. I've learnt that from experience.

[packs]

That's just not a viewpoint I'll ever agree with. Appreciate the civil debate though.

[egri]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Everyone in this country today has the opportunity to become a millionaire no matter your race, your background, your circumstances or whatever. . .If you don't retire a millionaire, that is YOUR FAULT and nobody else's!

A while ago, there was a book written called The Millionaire Next Door. It’s from 1996, so some of the data is a bit dated, but here is an excerpt:

Who is the prototypical American millionaire? What would he tell you about himself?
•I am a fifty-seven-year-old male, married with three children. About 70 percent of us earn 80 percent or more of our household's income.
•About one in five of us is retired. About two-thirds of us who are working are self-employed. Interestingly, self-employed people make up less than 20 percent of the workers in America but account for two-thirds of the millionaires. Also, three out of four of us who are self-employed consider ourselves to be entrepreneurs. Most of the others are self-employed professionals, such as doctors and accountants.
•Many of the types of businesses we are in could be classified as dullnormal. We are welding contractors, auctioneers, rice farmers, owners of mobile-home parks, pest controllers, coin and stamp dealers, and paving contractors.
•About half of our wives do not work outside the home. The number-one occupation for those wives who do work is teacher.
•Our household's total annual realized (taxable) income is $131,000 (median, or 50th percentile), while our average income is $247,000. Note that those of us who have incomes in the $500,000 to $999,999 category (8 percent) and the $1 million or more category (5 percent) skew the average upward.
•We have an average household net worth of $3.7 million. Of course, some of our cohorts have accumulated much more. Nearly 6 percent have a net worth of over $10 million. Again, these people skew our average upward. The typical (median, or 50th percentile) millionaire household has a net worth of $1.6 million.
•On average, our total annual realized income is less than 7 percent of our wealth. In other words, we live on less than 7 percent of our wealth.
•Most of us (97 percent) are homeowners. We live in homes currently valued at an average of $320,000. About half of us have occupied the same home for more than twenty years. Thus, we have enjoyed significant increases in the value of our homes.
•Most of us have never felt at a disadvantage because we did not receive any inheritance. About 80 percent of us are first-generation affluent.
•We live well below our means. We wear inexpensive suits and drive American-made cars. Only a minority of us drive the current-model-year automobile. Only a minority ever lease our motor vehicles.
•Most of our wives are planners and meticulous budgeters. In fact, only 18 percent of us disagreed with the statement "Charity begins at home." Most of us will tell you that our wives are a lot more conservative with money than we are.
•We have more than six and one-half times the level of wealth of our nonmillionaire neighbors, but, in our neighborhood, these nonmillionaires outnumber us better than three to one. Could it be that they have chosen to trade wealth for acquiring high-status material possessions?
•As a group, we are fairly well educated. Only about one in five are not college graduates. Many of us hold advanced degrees. Eighteen percent have master's degrees, 8 percent law degrees, 6 percent medical degrees, and 6 percent Ph.D.s.
•Only 17 percent of us or our spouses ever attended a private elementary or private high school. But 55 percent of our children are currently attending or have attended private schools.
•We are fastidious investors. On average, we invest nearly 20 percent of our household realized income each year. Most of us invest at least 15 percent. Seventy-nine percent of us have at least one account with a brokerage company. But we make our own investment decisions.
•We hold nearly 20 percent of our household's wealth in transaction securities such as publicly traded stocks and mutual funds. But we rarely sell our equity investments. We hold even more in our pension plans. On average, 21 percent of our household's wealth is in our private businesses.
•I am a tightwad. That's one of the main reasons I completed a long questionnaire for a crispy $1 bill. Why else would I spend two or three hours being personally interviewed by these authors? They paid me $100, $200, or $250. Oh, they made me another offer--to donate in my name the money I earned for my interview to my favorite charity. But I told them, "I am my favorite charity."

[Cmount76]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Hell yes, I care. It's Major League Baseball. And while all the off-the-field stuff baffles me (millionaires and billionaires not able to sit down, and reach a compromise on how much richer they will all be, while the average American worries if the cost of a treatment for a virus will bankrupt them), and angers me, it's still baseball. I love the sport. I wish it were 162 games being played while our country was not divided, with people suffering and dying. With brutality against individuals because of their skin color on full display. That's not our reality, right now, and it may not be for a while.

We need to try and find anything we can that makes life better, even if it's just a few hours a week. Baseball will serve as a welcome respite from the suffering. If I can turn on a game, and not think about the negatives for a few hours, I'll find a little peace. Next Wednesday, I'll sign up for MLB.tv, and get ready for opening day.

+1 - Couldn't have said it better! Let's play ball!

[dabigyankeeman]

I was not happy with the negotiations, but now thats in the past and I dont care what went on. I am self quarantining totally alone and going nuts mentally and I need baseball so badly, I am looking forward to enjoying the games starting Thursday (which is tomorrow as I type this), and nothing will take away my enjoyment of the game on the field.

I dont care what the owners wanted, what the players wanted, I dont care about cardboard fans and piped-in crowd noise, I just want and NEED to watch baseball, real games, not old games or meaningless exhibition games.

I will take the 60 game season as a whole season, and in reality, it makes each game and even each at bat have more meaning than they do in a 162 game season. I will be hanging on every pitch.

As a Yankees fan I really love that they are opening the season, and playing the Nats!!

I refuse to let any off the field crap take away my enjoyment of the game of baseball. Period.

[Marckus99]

Nope.
Haven’t seen a game in years.

[steve B]

Have you seen the stuff they'll use to "enhance" broadcasts this year?

Ringling went out of business, and I think I found where some of their people landed.
Foul territiory digitally overlaid with an ad.
Areas of seats overlaid with ads if the team doesn't sell ads on the tarps already.
A Gatorade logo digitally added the the back of the pitchers mound...
Contests during the game

[vintagetoppsguy]

Not me.

[Chuck9788]

Originally Posted by Marckus99

Nope.
Haven’t seen a game in years.

I adore and honor vintage baseball.

However, as someone who loyally supports our police officers and the brave men and women in uniform, I don't think I'm very welcome in todays MLB.

Sports in general has been transformed, it's now all about liberal social justice politics. That's not my thing.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Chuck9788

I adore and honor vintage baseball.

However, as someone who loyally supports our police officers and the brave men and women in uniform, I don't think I'm very welcome in todays MLB.

Sports in general has been transformed, it's now all about liberal social justice politics. That's not my thing.

+1 Same here

[packs]

It was a little weird to watch yesterday. I did like that the Dodgers had the cutouts in the stands.

Hard to imagine the postseason under these conditions. The crowd will be missed, I'm sure. Have to think it would be weird to celebrate a World Series in a quiet stadium.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by packs

It was a little weird to watch yesterday. I did like that the Dodgers had the cutouts in the stands.

Hard to imagine the postseason under these conditions. The crowd will be missed, I'm sure. Have to think it would be weird to celebrate a World Series in a quiet stadium.

Lots of championships have been celebrated with very little fans.......it really isnt that hard , plus there are still more people there than im sure there were in minor leagues for a lot of these guys or college. Plus by playoff time there may be some limited capacity of 1000s of fans...its only the the first day.

[packs]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Lots of championships have been celebrated with very little fans.......it really isnt that hard , plus there are still more people there than im sure there were in minor leagues for a lot of these guys or college. Plus by playoff time there may be some limited capacity of 1000s of fans...its only the the first day.

Have you ever been to a playoff game?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by packs

Have you ever been to a playoff game?

Yes professional baseball games at the MLB level level have lots of fans, 2020 is a Covid era deal with it

The point is many ballplayers in their lifetime have played in front of little fans and won playoff games.......so stanton will not swing the bat if in the playoffs because no fans...(though could be fans later in the yera)

It just wont be that weird for the players...ever go to high school playoff game or college? ...Plus the players know they are on national TV...its not like they playing the backyard...

[1952boyntoncollector]

It will be interesting is off the field

if you go 20-0....you wont see crazy fans when you are at hotel or airport...

if win world series..will anyone greet you at airport...theres no way for the players to know what the real fan response is.....

[nolemmings]

I read today that the St. Louis Cardinals have 55 games to play and 44 days to play them-- assuming they are back on the field Saturday. That's more than the old expression "every day of the week and twice on Sundays". It's a doubleheader every four days. Better cap those at 5 innings each--hey at least it would still be an official game.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Hell yes, I care. It's Major League Baseball. And while all the off-the-field stuff baffles me (millionaires and billionaires not able to sit down, and reach a compromise on how much richer they will all be, while the average American worries if the cost of a treatment for a virus will bankrupt them), and angers me, it's still baseball. I love the sport. I wish it were 162 games being played while our country was not divided, with people suffering and dying. With brutality against individuals because of their skin color on full display. That's not our reality, right now, and it may not be for a while.

We need to try and find anything we can that makes life better, even if it's just a few hours a week. Baseball will serve as a welcome respite from the suffering. If I can turn on a game, and not think about the negatives for a few hours, I'll find a little peace. Next Wednesday, I'll sign up for MLB.tv, and get ready for opening day.

Go Bill- Even a little is good.

.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I read today that the St. Louis Cardinals have 55 games to play and 44 days to play them-- assuming they are back on the field Saturday. That's more than the old expression "every day of the week and twice on Sundays". It's a doubleheader every four days. Better cap those at 5 innings each--hey at least it would still be an official game.

The Twins-Royals game Friday night at Target Field was rained out, meaning the Twins will make a bit of history on Saturday.

They will play a doubleheader where both games are scheduled to be seven innings. The first will start at 12:35 p.m., and the second will begin 30 minutes after the conclusion of the first game.

This isn't Major League Baseball. This is exhibition baseball. Entertainment and nothing else.

[etsmith]

And people like Huysmans are the real problem with modern America. They don't seem to understand that by helping the less fortunate to better themselves also helps them and America in the long term.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by etsmith

And people like Huysmans are the real problem with modern America. They don't seem to understand that by helping the less fortunate to better themselves also helps them and America in the long term.

What he said was:

Originally Posted by Huysmans

Bottom line Packs, it's not that I'm in disagreement with you regarding government programs and helping those who need help. I am NOT in favour of putting the burden on the rich, whatsoever. Redistribution of wealth is taking from the rich in my opinion, but we obviously won't agree. Those who volunteer it, good on them.

As a lifelong liberal, I've come to the conclusion that people need to be responsible for themselves, and as liberals, we're never honest in regards to how many people really have themselves to blame for their situation. Not all, but many. I've learnt that from experience.

And I agree 100% with him. He makes it clear in his first sentence he favors programs that help people who need it and so do I. So I have no idea why you say that people like him, and me, are the real problem with America.