Seriously

It's easy to forget how many people lurk on these boards.

I can name 5 APZers that would all do well commanding a squadron. There are some shitty APZs, but at least from what I've seen (F-16 world), there are some really good dudes too... far better than the few BTZers I've seen.

Assuming you're talking about pilots, those seem like prohibited statements. "When making an assignment recommendation on an OPR, there will be no reference to a higher grade, and it must be consistent with the officer’s appropriate progression of their professional development." "3.17.4.5.2. Prohibited EXAMPLES: 3.17.4.5.2.1. “Make Lt Triska an FSS Commander.” (Inappropriate next level of progression). 3.17.4.5.2.2. “Send Capt Brown to IDE after selection to major.” (Reference to IDE is appropriate, but the comment “after selection to major” is an implied promotion statement). 3.17.4.5.2.3. “SDE in 2008, Group Commander in 2012, and Wing Commander in 2015.” (Goes beyond the scope of the next assignment). 3.17.4.5.2.4. “Capt Phelps is ready to be a flying Sq/CC” and “Make Maj Knisley a group commander.” (In both cases, the recommendations are clearly beyond the officer’s next assignment and are viewed as veiled promotion statements).

Kwast has a fairly long history of not tolerating shenanigans.. instructor to student or major to cadet

This is the logical conclusion of this change in policy coupled with the BRS and the fact that they don't select majors for school at the board anymore (i.e. you don't know exactly where you stand at decision time). The #1 problem with the new ADCS policy is that guys hot for non-flying 365s will have to go on said 365, then they incur a 3 year adsc when they get requal'd to fly the plane they already knew how to fly. It's like getting caught in a hydraulic in the rapids. Beatings will continue whether morale improves or not.

It used to be like that by the way. I think the current merit based system started in the 80s. Hacker posted a paper on the history of UPT a few years back that talks about that.

First, I don't necessarily think free college is a good idea. I honestly just haven't made up my mind on it. I want to put that out there so that you don't automatically assume that I'm Karl Che Lenin Stalin reincarnated. Second, the label of socialism doesn't apply to the government providing free college for everyone because the state doesn't own the means of production (in this case of knowledge), they're simply paying private institutions for the knowledge. This is a semantics argument which I feel dirty using, but it's important because if you're going to argue that a policy won't work because it's socialism, then you need to apply that label correctly. Last, if free college is socialism, then is free K-12 education also socialism? How is that any different? All we would be doing is taking people from a 12th grade education level up to a 16th grade education level. This could be a complete waste of money, but again, I'm not trying to talk about that merits of free college. I'm trying to get you guys to realize that calling everything you disagree with "socialism" or "fascism" is specious.

Socialism is a system in which the means of production are owned by the government (which you stated). A capitalist system is one in which the means of production are privately owned. But clearly you have trouble identifying real-world examples of socialism, so here are some examples of things commonly dubbed "socialism" that categorically are not. Socialism: Nationalized health care (like the UK) Not socialism: Affordable Care Act Socialism: Publicly owned broadband Not socialism: Net neutrality Socialism: 100% taxes redistributed evenly Not socialism: <100% estate tax Socialism: Completely state owned education system Not-socialism: Free college for everyone I advocate for some of these policies but not all... Yet, over and over again, anything the Democrats want is called "socialism" and anything the Republicans want is "fascism." These words are now completely meaningless outside of an academic setting and have resulted in both the Democrats and Republicans thinking the other has moved radically away from center. So you blindly calling all taxes or welfare systems "socialism" is flat-out wrong, continues to polarize your own views, and starves the conversation of actual debate as you've demonstrated... Your basic premise for argument follows this typical formula: pick any topic -> call it socialism -> point out that socialism has failed universally -> reiterate that all redistribution of wealth is socialism-> repeat. Often, you'll create a straw-man argument and attack that instead. If that doesn't work, then you'll just resort to personal attacks. Classy. So here we sit. I've given some arguments for political topics like the estate tax and social security. You've given me, "That's redistribution of wealth, which is socialism, which is bad." You follow that up with more right-wing rallying cries against the Democrats. So who's argument is simple here? Because all I'm hearing is the same refrain repeated ad nauseum. We started this conversation before Senator McCain's passing which makes his farewell message ever more poignant. it's reread my posts over the last couple of pages then reread paragraph 7 & 8 of Senator McCain's farewell message. Here was my first post, if you don't want to scroll back through the conversation: Commence more straw-man arguments...

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/11/23/a-hated-tax-but-a-fair-one This article addresses the pros and cons of the estate tax. And the farm argument was interesting to me at first, but if you do the research, the number of farms hit by that is extremely low, so the tax as designed, goes towards preventing wealthy dynasties from continuing to amass wealth and power. https://www.businessinsider.com/does-estate-tax-hurt-small-businesses-2017-6 My comment about "hoarding money" was an oversimplification used for brevity.

Ratner.. why are you telling me about the evils of socialism? Please quote me where I advocated socialism. Everyone already knows that economic system does not work. My original post was talking about defining socialism because it isn't cut and dry like you try to make it out to be. there's definitely a spectrum, and we're finally starting to get there with MooseAg03's post. I'm trying to stick to one topic at a time, so we'll continue with social security since MosseAg03 brought it up and that's a pretty easy kill. Social security has definitely become a failure because the government has treated the money as if it's their own personal bank account. They haven't been good stewards of the money, and now that system is collapsing. It was poorly designed and poorly implemented. It was a good idea though, and I'm sure there are ways to implement individual retirement accounts for everyone so that they can live into old age with the bare necessities taken care of so that they aren't homeless and starving. Not everyone has a loving family that can care for them, and not everyone has the means to plan properly for their retirement. There are a lot of people that lose their entire savings because they were tricked (by financial planner not held to a fiduciary standard), took bad advice, or just blew all their money on some addiction (shopping, gambling, what have you). You can call them dumb, and they might be, but they don't deserve to be thrown out onto the streets with no food and nowhere to go. I certainly don't want a bunch of bums milling around. They attract crime and bring down property values. So we need something as a society to prevent that from happening. I don't call that socialism. I call that taking care of Americans.

Cool... I agree with that author and everything he said, but he didn't really say anything of substance. He said loving your country is good, you shouldn't burn the flag (but you have the right to), living in America is great, and that the American government was meant to be limited and self-governing. Then he lists a bunch of stuff that we get for free... That stuff doesn't just happen. It happens because we have a well-funded government that is generally not corrupt. You get safe to drink water and a sewage system because of the government's regulations. You get a well built house because we have building codes and inspectors to ensure construction companies are complying with those codes. You get generally safe to eat food in the grocery store because our government has rules in place to safeguard them and the means to enforce those rules. The free market didn't magically give us all of those things. Why is Nogales, Mexico a complete shithole, and Nogales, Arizona is only partially a shithole? Because good laws and the means to enforce them make a difference. So then what exactly is limited government? Because I feel like we're having a pointless debate right now.

Banks loan out the money that kept in those banks. Whether that money is held by 1 million people or one thousand people doesn't matter. And I don't think saving money is dumb. I invest and I save roughly 50% of my pay check. If we're going to increase the wealth equality gap in America, then I'm gonna be on the right side of that gap. But this isn't a system that is sustainable. We've had a good economic run since the great depression because of the "socialist" policies that we've had over the past 90 years that have kept the money moving. To answer your earlier comment, the effectiveness of trickle-down economics is debatable. 1 person just doesn't spend as much 1 million people, even if that one person is Elon Musk. On the other hand, we need people like him. Those entrepreneurs are absolutely vital to our country's continued dominance and the progress of the world, but the chances of his children (if he has any) turning out to be just like him are slim. Freakonomics radio did a good piece on this (https://freakonomics.com/podcast/new-freakonomics-radio-podcast-the-church-of-scionology/). This is why I am for an estate tax, not a 100% tax, but something more akin to what we had before the recent changes. It puts money back into the economy, keeps inflation at a healthy level, and gives the government funds to maintain and grow our infrastructure. Edit: And thank you for your earlier comment about everyone here wanting what's best for the country. That doesn't get said enough, and if we ever want to actually get stuff done, then we need to work together to make compromises.

One thing at a time so we don't digress on tangents. Estate tax: How fair is it to pay taxes twice isn't a concern. Yes it's fair to tax money twice. The estate tax doesn't tax the income twice, it taxes the fact that you decided to hoard your money instead of putting it back into the economy. You pay taxes twice on a lot of things. You pay income tax (maybe even twice if your state also taxes that income, you pay sales tax, you pay property tax, you pay for the increase in prices caused by tarriffs, etc. So do you think that all of those taxes are unfair as well? For the farm example, I honestly don't feel that bad about a son having to sell some of the land. The current exemption is $11.18 million, so I'm not sad if he only gets $6 million. He can easily make up the difference in less than a decade, and that money would go back towards repairing the infrastructure that keeps our country running. Again, I don't endorse a 100% estate tax, and I do agree that you should be able to pass on a certain amount of money to your children if you wish, but there needs to be a limit. I don't want a future in which anyone with the last name of MooseAg03 automatically gets the best education.

It was a rhetorical question, I know you have always been this way. /kidding Wealth is absolutely hoarded, and wealthy families passively deny everyone else wealth when they hoard it because it ultimately hurts the economy. Simply put, what makes an economy go is money exchanging hands. When wealth sits in a portfolio, it is not generating any more wealth for the country. The economy is like blood in the body. There might be a constant amount in a system, but there's a big difference in one's health between it constantly flowing, versus it pooling in one place. Example: Ten people, 20 dollars. Two dollars a piece. I might pay you $1 for cooking me lunch, and then you might pay $1 to John for babysitting. John needs his car fixed, which I do for $1. In the end, we have the same amount as we started, but our lives are all better through the transfer of goods and services. Now, let's hoard the wealth. You get $17 of the dollars, and Bob, John and I have $1 each. Six others have nothing. It sounds great for you at first, but the economy will struggle. Nobody will purchase from the store you open. The poor six can't buy, and they can't invest in their economic growth (like buying the supplies to sell me a lunch). The three with $1 need to save it for a rainy day, and overall most trade will cease. We see this in times of economic inequality. The top two times of American economic inequality were about 1929, and again around 2007. Interesting how that factor predicts a crash.. - companies have fewer purchases in a depression, because some people have no income - the poor can't invest in their personal growth. College would allow them to earn more, but they can't pay for the costs to attend. - There becomes an excess of inventory, since people can't afford it anymore (Great Depression cars, 2008's foreclosed houses and vacant new-build homes, plane tickets, etc.) The best thing to do to jumpstart economic growth is to lower the inequality by enhancing the income of the poor. Bill Gates does this with his foundation, taking his billions and spending it on healthcare and education. Henry Ford did it by raising wages to $5-a-day (in a $5 a week era) for his workers. The turnaround was that these workers now had the money to buy his cars and increase his sales. Or they could sit there with the money hoarded. Which choice is better? source This is why property taxes and the estate tax are good. They disincentivize the hoarding of wealth which demonstrably hurts the economy. Of course, you still need to find a balance. The answer isn't a 100% tax, nor is it a 0% tax.

Did someone piss in your Cheerios or have you always been this abrasive? I want to know if you think it's a good idea to repeal the estate tax.

lol... I see this discussion is going nowhere. I'll show myself the door.

I agree with everything you said. My post earlier was about the fact that people argue over the word socialism without giving any context. Everyone is essentially in agreement over everything except for the word "socialism" because people *do* want policies that make America a fair and equitable place to live in, where your success in life is determined by your own personal effort and not by who your parents are. But because the toxic label of "socialism" is applied by anything the Republican party disagrees with, we can't have an honest debate on the merits of such social policies as the estate tax, universal basic income or tuition free college for everyone, and whether or not those make sense economically for the country. Brickhistory... what are your thoughts on the estate tax?

What is socialism? At what point does a socialist become Stalin? You’re conflating a socialist economy with social policies. The two aren’t strictly bound together (unless you’re purposefully muddying the water for political attack). Socialism as an economic system is what leads to a countries collapse, but social policies (i.e. policies for the people), like the 40 hour work week and elimination of child labor, are in fact what leads to a country’s progress.

When the current PT uniform came out, you were supposed to wear it untucked and could mix and match items with civilians clothes. Of course, that didn't last long.

Sleeve rolling is allowed now though..

At this point, that's all it is. TM is too new for the functionals to put any trust into the system. They're basically just looking at the algorithm's output and modifying it to suit what the OGs want. Just like before, the process has worked out for some and robbed others.

The order to not write PRFs on the last board came after all the PRFs were at the group level.

Cyber should have been the 6th department, not space.

As an F-16 guy, I enjoy every mission... even if I have no idea what I'm doing because I haven't flown that mission in a year.

So... why did we not just include the PRFs that everybody had already written anyways?