Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 10:08 AM) Where did this magical limitation come from? I'm assuming it, just like you're assuming the majority would opt out.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 10:03 AM) There cannot be an "opt out" for the SS system as designed, or it cannot work. It would collapse without "you" or "I", which is the problem in what you're suggesting. Really? So if you die today and stop contributing the SS fund collapses?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 09:58 AM) Do you understand how SS works? Nope, explain it to me, with an explanation of how a minority of people taking out their contribution (while also not receiving any payments later) will greatly screw the rest of society.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 09:50 AM) Yes, because in this case there is nothing on the back end to save them...because this WAS designed to save them. So, in essence, it's one sacrifice you and I have to make for the good of the many. Oh, and stop taking about "stupid people", because most smart people have no idea how to invest either...including the majority of people on this message board. I love how we're throwing out terms like "them" and "they," not "me" or "I," which is precisely the problem. I'm not arguing we scrap the "safety net" for "them," I'm saying let me take my portion out and put it to something else.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 09:53 AM) Ah yes, the "social safety nets are a good thing and we shouldn't try to enrich a very small number of (already very wealthy) people at the expense of everyone else" argument. How is me taking out my SS contribution and using that money to invest on my own at the expense of everyone else?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 09:46 AM) In this case, they are. You'd end up with a majority population with nothing after retirement, and you'd still have to take care of them -- unless of course you enact some sort of famine law and just mow them all down with machine guns to "take them off the books". Ah, you mean like medicare and other subsidies the government provides the elderly? Do old people really live on their SS income? Isn't the whole problem right now that SS isn't enough for a lot of people?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 09:46 AM) In this case, they are. They being a minority, not the majority.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 09:36 AM) Exactly, like I said, it would benefit people like myself. But for all the others who try, fail and lose everything...then what? It would cause more potential problems than it would solve. For the good of the many, this needs to be left alone, despite the fact that it would benefit me. What kinds of problems exactly? So because some stupid people will spend their money we should deny other people the option of investing THEIR OWN MONEY as they see fit? If that's the worry then put up some sort of requirement for opting out of social security (i.e., must be invested in something, can't just be spent as cash). But we deal with this situation in other areas of society. We allow people to buy houses despite knowing that a good number of them are too stupid to understand the terms of the deal or what they can actually afford. This ends up costing society as a whole too, but we (democrats) still demand that banks lend to those people because home ownership is a "right" in this country.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 09:35 AM) It's an all-or-nothing thing by nature, and it would harm way more than it would help while enriching a very small handful of people. Sounds like a pretty terrible idea to me. Ah yes, the "people-are-too-stupid-for-their-own-good-so-government-should-do-everything-for-them" argument.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 09:08 AM) Right, what Y2HH is saying. Privatizing SS would be a huge handout to money managers/evil, nefarious Wall Street Bankers, but it wouldn't benefit an overwhelming majority of people. but it would to some, which is why we should be given a choice.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 09:05 AM) Yes. The Politifact link only provides total dollar amounts in their comparison and refers to them as "Wages". Those amounts are reflecting the total value of compensation given to the worker. The comparison numbers there are your total compensation figures, counting health care costs, probably social security taxes, and whatever retirement accounts exist as well. How do you know? I just don't see any reference to that anywhere there.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 10:40 PM) I have no idea, thats why I was asking Jenks why he thought they may "take a leap" and pointed out the age of those guys. The only guy I am familiar with talent-wise is Richmond and frankly if he is a 4 year player at Illinois than that is a pretty bad job of coaching by the staff. You would assume most players that come in being the best player in a hugely talented state would be one or two and done. Richardson I think will be, only because he probably doesn't have the body to be an NBA 2. I think his "leap" is going to be moving from a 3 pt specialist (which he is now) to a guy that can take someone off the dribble and create his own shot. Be more of an offensive leader. With the talent around him though he might want to stay out on the perimeter and hit the open shots. That's why next years team will be interesting. I have no idea what their strength will be. They'll have a freshman PG or a couple of upperclass combo guards handling the ball. They'll have a ton of athletic wings and a couple of young big guys. I think they'll just be talented, without a specific inside/outside strength. Richmond should stay at least one more year. He has raw skill and talent, and is very intelligent. However I think he can improve his draft stock a lot (going from, say 1st round to lottery pick) if he can show scouts his ability to be more of a point forward. His shooting also needs some work. But I'm stuck in the late 90's to early 00's draft thinking. Nowadays you take a chance on raw talent over proven veterans early in the draft. I'm sure if scouts are saying first round Weber will advise him to go. Though with the lockout pending I'm not sure how that works. Do the guys that get drafted still get their paychecks if the lockout happens?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 08:42 AM) The total cost number is including benefits. When you include the value of the pension benefits and healthcare, that's when they become similar. If you're talking strictly the total that you get as a paycheck every month, the private sector wins. are you reading the link you provided?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 08:38 AM) Public workers do get a lot more than private workers on average...if you fail to control for education and for experience level. If you look at the average pay that you would get for the same job for a public position versus a private position, the differences vanish, and it winds up being a question of the exact type of work you're really doing. The "Public workers are overpaid!" meme is another of those things Fox News loves to harp on, that ought to tell you how accurate it is. So, you just played the role of Fox News, claiming that people have to take a 20% pay cut to go public, when in reality it's not a whole lot different, and it really depends on the type of job you're going for yes? Edit: And that doesn't speak to benefits right? That just talks about pure annual income.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 07:40 AM) The problem with that concept is actually attracting skilled and competitive workers for the positions you have available. A big reason to go into any sort of government job is the benefits, because compared to a worker with equal education, you're taking a 20% pay cut on average to go into government work. The Pension and healthcare are your equalizers. link? I thought a study just last year said that public now out pays private? Regardless, I have to believe if you ignore the Fortune 500 CEO salaries, and you look at the "average" worker, it's a helluva lot better to be a public employee once you factor in all the added benefits.

Good piece by 60 Minutes exposing the absolute trainwreck the states are in right now, especially Illinois. Key lines: (1) Illinois spends TWICE as much money as it brings in. (2) Our Comptroller calls us the "Deadbeat State," and acknowledges we're the worst in the Union. State reps getting kicked out of office spaces for not paying bills, gas stations refusing to honor state credit cards...It's time for public pensions and benefits to take a major hit, just like the rest of us. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7166293n

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 04:12 PM) Poll after poll showed strong support (70%+) among the general public for DADT repeal. The general public that doesn't serve and won't have to "deal" with the changes? Does their opinion matter in this debate? I mean, i'm fine with DADT being repealed, but at the same time I think the opinions of military personnel matter a lot more than you or I.

QUOTE (hitlesswonder @ Dec 19, 2010 -> 04:05 PM) Gonzaga is not a a good team. The truth is that Illinois hasn't beaten anyone noteworthy and they got exposed as the fringe tournament team they are yesterday. I fully expect Mizzou's press will destroy them, given their inability to dribble, which should be entertaining to watch. Illinois has a bunch of 4 year players and some very athletic players, so it's easy to see why in the preseason they were expected to be good. But the season doesn't lie and they have not improved significantly from last year. If any coach needed any negative recruiting material against Illinois, they only need to look at what has happened to DJ Richardson's ability slash and drive to the hoop (which he excelled at before college), and how Weber has handled Brandon Paul and Richmond. Hell, even Mike Davis has a wealth of athleticism and he is worse now than he was as a freshman. People have said that Weber is a system coach and his system works well to get the most out of mid-major talent, and I think that appears to be true now. He has a very athletic team whose offense is simply jump-shooting. They have shot one of the lowest number of per possession free-throws in the nation for a while, and it's no longer possible to blame that on the players. It's too bad, because the talent to be an exciting team is there. Wow. Back off the ledge buddy. It's one bad loss, it's not the end of the world. National championship teams have had equally bad losses before. Illinois was an explosive team up until this point (scoring 70+ points in all games...only Duke and Kansas have done that). It's pretty hard to win when you shoot 33%. Not an excuse for the loss, but come on. If you watched the game UIC was hitting some ridiculous 3's too. As for Weber, you're insane. You give him too much criticism for these types of losses and no credit for his good wins. Fact is he can't put the ball in the hoop. He can't physically restrain people from making stupid fouls. He can't get his players amped up/excited to play the game. This loss was on the players, not the coach. And yeah, I have no idea what you're talking about with Richardson. Not sure how his game could be any better at this point. He's a sophomore on a team with 3 seniors starting. He's not going to suddenly take the Lebron James role on this team. He finds his niche like any good player does. Perhaps next year he makes that leap, but you can't expect him to do that now. What's he done wrong with Richmond? Seems to me he's having a very solid freshman season so far (12 games remember). Paul is all athletic talent, but is totally inconsistent. Again, he's a SOPHOMORE. If you were expecting something more then that's on you. IMO Illinois is a top 10-top 15 team. I think they have the potential to make a deep run in the tourney. It obviously all depends on if they show up to play. These players, lead by the worthless Mike Davis and the soft Mike Tisdale, have always played down to their competition. That's been the theme of their tenure here.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 08:42 AM) The big hot topic right now is the possibility of removing the mortgage interest deduction on taxes. Seems to me that's a pretty stupid move, I'd rather they got away from the deduction on other things first that wouldn't do as much direct damage to the economy. For example, the health care cost deductions - the demand curve is nearly inflexible anyway, and you don't necessarily want to encourage its use. Not that people should plan for that deduction, but that's kind of significant for most folks I would think. Why penalize people who are contributing to the economy by being a homeowner (and all that goes with it).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 08:40 AM) You guys spend a million dollar a month on student loans? lol, oops.

They should consider a 2 year freeze on federal student loan payments. If I had an extra 1200 (what my wife and I spend collectively every month), i'd sure as hell be spending a lot more on goods/services. I'm guessing such a plan would be hugely expensive for the government though.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 12:26 PM) Actually, it can't, by nature. The funding level for NSF grants is not determined by these scientists, its a set number that Congress has to pass. So you're saying ever grant ever handed out was spot on, no waste, and absolutely beneficial to our advancement and knowledge? Edit: I should say that by "excess" I don't mean spending over and above what's been allocated. I'm saying it's money that never should have been allocated to begin with.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 11:54 AM) There's 1 point you're missing here Jenks...these projects are peer-reviewed. Repeatedly. NSF grants are probably the most heavily questioned, heavily overseen funds that the government spends. The average success rate on first-time submission NSF proposals right now is right around 10%. The overall success rate hangs around 20%...and that's after people submit proposals 2-3 times getting all of the details exactly right. Every grant has to go through about a half dozen different review levels, by both bureaucrats (not in the pejorative sense) and by panels of reviewers working in that field, who in many cases are their competition. One big reason we get bent out of shape when people just pluck a phrase that sounds funny or complex and say "Oh this clearly is a waste of money" is that if it was a waste of money, it never would have come close to being funded. So scientists reviewing other scientists to determine if their research is warranted is the perfect system. No excess spending could possibly happen there! Look, in general I agree with you. A complete waste of money isn't going to slip by. BUT, it's a bunch of scientists, who by their nature are going to approve projects that otherwise might not be so....resourceful. Their ideology is that learning X about Y is ALWAYS beneficial, almost regardless of cost. So the process is having scientists determining not whether it's worth ANY money, but HOW MUCH money. That's better left to, you know, representatives and legislators. I agree that if there's some downright lies about projects then it's something to complain about. But i'm sorry, using a phrase to generalize a study or project using federal dollars is the only way that average people can get a grasp of where their money is going. Of course a GOP member is going to overstate its waste. Just like a liberal environmentalist is going to overstate how important it is. My point is that i'd rather have people question spending, even if irrationally so, than to just accept that every grant the government hands out is warranted. EVERYTHING is a waste unless proven otherwise IMO.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 11:07 AM) Hmm, sounds substantially different from "One, a $750,000 NSF grant "to develop computer models to analyze the on-field contribution of soccer players."" Kinda like Bobby Jindahl's "volcano monitoring", and Sarah Palin's "fruit flies", and pretty much every GOP member attacking science funding that sounds funny to them and plays well with an ignorant base. Why are you making excuses for characterizing the research in the most negative, asinine way possible instead of honestly, if you really want citizen input? Why not have links to the grant proposal or a summary of the research? edit: not links from you, but on the "Youcut" website. edit2:here's the paper Lol, scientific elitism at its finest - "the base is too stupid to understand the importance of the almighty science!" Look, you're clearly on the scientific side, and that's great. But people have a right to have an opinion on what their money is being used for. These politicians might dumb the projects down to key catch phrases, but that's still basically what it is. When people are out of work and don't have money for food, spending 750k "to study a very broad range of questions related to creating productive, efficient teams of researchers who innovate" is suspect and should be questioned.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 10:32 AM) Ok, who's proposing this false dichotomy? NSF funding isn't that great and the grant process isn't unquestioning. Misleading statements, outright lies and ignorance to score political points is never a good thing. Oh GMAFB. Gee, someone reacts negatively to someone who's calling their project a waste of money. SHOCKER. He didn't even specifically address any mistatement, he gave some broad answer. As if that really clarifies anything.