StrangeSox

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 4, 2012 -> 02:11 PM) Do we want the school to decide what is, and what is not legal, or the police and CPS? And if the school makes the wrong decision, should they be absolved of their mistake? At least on the radio interview it seemed as if it had been two 18 year old students they would not have called CPS and the police. I've said from the start that in these cases, I'd personally be clarifying district policy once I was aware of this potentially being an issue. If I were district counsel, I'd clarify with CPS and police on the proper policy.

The formal name is actually "Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI)." It's not a government-run 401(k) plan and was never meant to be. edit: the trust fund itself was a later amendment to the original program.

There's always been the disability insurance aspect of it, so you could always far over-draw how much you contributed if you were disabled at a young age.

Texas should modify its statutes in this area to bring them more in line with the "SYG" language--don't give an affirmative defense for the 18yo boinking the 17yo, give them presumed innocence.

The article quotes District Counsel Aceveto as saying that they contacted Child Protective Services and the local police due to the male being a minor.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 4, 2012 -> 12:37 PM) I am tired of seeing this. For one thing, it isn't true - we are borrowing from those funds all the time, which is basically a hidden debt. Also, this idea that we don't need to address it right now, is the same as people saying we don't need to address the deficit or debt at all right now. It is deciding to live in ignorance of the path you are on, hoping to deal with it later, when it will be much more difficult and expensive to deal with. Real simple fix for Soc Sec: disallow any further borrowing from Soc Sec for any reason, keep the current lowered payroll tax rate, lower it to that rate for businesses too, and remove the cap. I've seen this type of scenario laid out with all the math - it gets rid of virtually any risk of future shortfalls. And makes the tax less regressive. I don't consider "stop taking money from SS" as addressing any problems with SS since the problem is "taking SS money away from SS" and not actually something wrong with SS. I'm in favor of stopping that. We really don't need to deal with the debt or deficit now as in we don't need to get to a balanced budget next year. As we have ample evidence for now (recent Romer and Delong paper), short-term deficit obsession leading to strict austerity during the current economic situation we find ourselves in actually hurts long-term revenue growth and worsens the debt down the road. There's also Modern Monetary Theory that advocates low-level deficits in perpetuity, but that's the extent of my knowledge on that. I don't see any issues with your proposed fixes, but I'd like to see them laid out.

The PPACA's impact on Medicare is where we got all sorts of fun things like "death panels" and "KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY MEDICARE!" signs.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Apr 4, 2012 -> 12:13 PM) I'm with you, but I'm Hispanic so I'll organize the Million Hispanic Man March, we stand alongside our white brothers against scary black youths in hoodies armed with Skittles...the horror!! If we can't shoot suspicious black youths without fear of any reprecussions, that's not the America I want to live in. Somehow in all this crazy racial crap, a young teenage boy was killed by some overzealous weirdo, forget race for a moment, the kid was unarmed, bothering no one and ended dead. I don't care what race he or the shooter was, that was a wrongful death anyway you cut it, that simple. What soxbadger does a great job of hitting on is that Zimmerman possibly being racist isn't the only or even the most important racial issue here.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 4, 2012 -> 12:01 PM) I said nothing of equivalency in terms of failing to compromise. On the contrary, the parties are alike specifically for what they ignore, or only do very little to address. PPACA doesn't do much to curb Medicare spending, as I understood it. No one wants to touch Soc Sec, and in fact they keep borrowing from it. And the military budget is still way to large, not because I think the generals are lying, but because they are forced to budget for a force capable of acting in ways I don't believe they should be acting. I didn't say in terms of failing to compromise. I meant in terms of addressing those issues you laid out. Obamacare attempts to bend the cost-curve for medical care. Whether it will is another question, but it at least attempts to slow down the growth which would impact Medicare/caid spending. Ryan proposes addressing Medicare by essentially eliminating it. I suppose that counts as addressing spending on the program, but it's not actually a realistic policy proposal. I'm right there with you in agreeing that the military budget is far too large, but look what happens when Obama proposes a budget that doesn't continue growing the military exponentially: he's hammered from the right to the point of their star deficit hawk implying that the generals are lying due to political pressure and of course the tried-and-true "democrats are weak" talking points. No one needs to touch Social Security, at least for a while, and it doesn't impact the deficit.

I'm just glad that Obama has apparently finally realized that the Republicans have zero interest in bipartisanship to get any major legislation done no matter how much he moves to adopt their positions. Hell, look at all the flak Obama gets from the right over not embracing B-S (which is a terrible austerity plan, but that's another issue) while at the same time Mr. Very Serious voted against it when he was on the damn committee.

Obamacare at least attempts to do something about Medicare/caid. The DoD has recommended a budget that Paul Ryan, Mr. Very Serious Deficit Hawk, claimed was just the Generals lying. Paul Ryan's budget gives ample increases to Defense while Obama's does not (and especially true for the Progressive Caucus budget, for that matter). There's still not any real equivalency on those issues.

I enjoyed Obama's speech to the AP yesterday: (long, but worth copying in toto) In response to yet another debt-obsession question:

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 4, 2012 -> 09:45 AM) And I think it was SS that cited a study a while back that showed the most "extreme" politically biased justices were the 1970's liberals. So what's your point? The pendulum is swinging the other way, as it always does. You called that study a pile of s*** or something similar, don't rely on it now.

But you cited a blog! edit: I wouldn't even call RCP a blog, anyway. They're typically linking to articles written by well-known journalists and pundits.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 4, 2012 -> 09:19 AM) Of course that fact is not going to be openly celebrated...we'd all like to think that the highest court is composed of only the most objective collection of wise individuals possible... Of course, as Jenks said, FDR tried to add two Justices (and thus amend the Constitution) just so he could get a Democratic majority back in the Court.... The open antagonism from both sides of the FDR-era courts makes today look timid.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 4, 2012 -> 09:03 AM) Because geography often dictates political views, especially in the past, less so now. Has the Court gotten more attention for "political decisions?" Yes. Is this some new trend that justices have tendencies to rule the same as their political beliefs? No. It does seem to be somewhat cyclical, but you're absolutely right that the court has been highly political in the past.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 4, 2012 -> 08:24 AM) A worthy read. "A Teen’s Brave Response to “I’m Christian, Unless You’re Gay”" You should tag that as NSFW, I started to tear up. I'm ever grateful that my parents, who both tend to be conservative politically and were church-going Christians for my whole childhood (though it was a pretty moderate, bland version of Lutheranism from what I recall), never even had a hint of an issue with my brother's sexuality.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 08:57 PM) Seen a few. Cheered for each one. I see a bunch in cali when I've been there recently for work

Still seriously overpriced.

My favorite part is [very long pause]

Part of me hopes they meet the junior high requirements of "three pages minimum!!!" by spelling out Y-E-S in huge font, one letter per page.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 05:49 PM) 50 year old white man beaten with a hammer by two black teens and left for dead in the street 6 miles from Sanford, FL. Currently hanging on, barely. No word from Al 'Let's escalate this baby!' Sharpton or Jessie. http://www.wftv.com/news/news/deputies-men...-sanford/nMHW6/ Thank you for displaying by how much you miss the point.

Fifth Circuit Panel of GOP-Nominated Judges Orders DOJ to Say Whether President Obama Believes in Judicial Review This seems incredibly petty. Straight to detention for the Obama Administration!

I understand that now, but I still agree with the dissent and that Florence's challenge as stated should have been upheld.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 02:00 PM) I couldn't tell you this. But it matters. It's like when a superior asks me to do something that really doesn't need to be done...but they want it done anyway...only to a different degree, since they're working for the government. They're working under a lot of rules you and I are do not...and I do not know all of these rules, or the reasons for these rules. Roberts and Alito both note this as well, as does Breyer. Alito is reserving judgement on a case of someone arrested for a misdemeanor such as jaywalking and not a warrant related to a misdemeanor.