Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[Professor Tiger]

Social Security Interest?

Short stop-Ineligible?

Submarine (GBJ will get that reference) - Intermediate?

[innocentbystander]

Social Security Interest?

Short stop-Ineligible?

Submarine (GBJ will get that reference) - Intermediate?

The I stands for "insurance" Tiger. I kept telling you that all SSI was, was old age "insurance" and you kept saying I was wrong. And when I proved what it was, you refused to swallow your pride.

Swallow it. Say you were wrong.

[innocentbystander]

Romney wins Wyoming

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/29/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_c1

[bluetick]

Stocks Rise on Signs of Stabilizing US Economy

jobless claims fall as personal incomes rose

[Professor Tiger]

The I stands for "insurance" Tiger. I kept telling you that all SSI was, was old age "insurance" and you kept saying I was wrong. And when I proved what it was, you refused to swallow your pride.

Swallow it. Say you were wrong.

Heh. "SAY YOU WERE WRONG! APOLOGIZE! YOU ARE PROUD!"

How old are you? Do your parents allow you to use the internet? Do you call all the other girls every night and agree what you are wearing to Jr. High class tomorrow?

Here's the definition of "insurance" according to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insurance. I hope that this source is acceptable to you:

in·sur·ance
   [in-shoor-uhns, -shur-] Show IPA
noun
1. the act, system, or business of insuring property, life, one's person, etc., against loss or harm arising in specified contingencies, as fire, accident, death, disablement, or the like, in consideration of a payment proportionate to the risk involved.

2. coverage by contract in which one party agrees to indemnify or reimburse another for loss that occurs under the terms of the contract.

3. the contract itself, set forth in a written or printed agreement or policy.

4. the amount for which anything is insured.

5. an insurance premium.

I'm not an expert on Social Security, but I understand part of it does pay for disability before one reaches 62/65/70. At least that's what Binder and Binder commercials say. So yeah, that very small part of SS could be considered insurance. But for the main part of social security - the part people mean when they say the words "social security" - i.e. the money it pays out when reach a certain age: I guess my first question is this: what "property, life, or one's person" is "insured" by Social Security? What "loss" does social security indemnify? Is my "property" insured by SS? Nope. If my house gets hit buy a tornado, SS will not pay me. Does SS insure my life? Nope. If I die, SS only pays a tiny death benefit of about $500. If SS is a life insurance policy, it's a pretty crappy one. Does SS insure my "person"? Nope. If my "person" is harmed by, say, a car wreck, SS won't pay me a penny.

So, social security fails to meet even the most basic dictionary definition of "insurance." It does not "reimburse" for any "loss," any 'fire", any "accident," any "property," any "life," any harm to "person." It only pays a tiny benefit for "death," and only rarely covers "disablement."

Social Security is not insurance. By definition. Now go back to watching all the episodes of Twilight you've TEVO'd, and come back after a few months of brewing on this rather stupid subject. I will then use facts and logic to run circles around you, again. And you will squeal "SAY YOU WERE WRONG! APOLOGIZE! YOU ARE PROUD!" again. And all will be right in the world.

[Professor Tiger]

I repeat my question to you: Please reconcile your statement...

For the record, Mitt was NEVER Pro-Choice.

...with this video:



...and this:

[innocentbystander]

The I stands for "insurance" Tiger. I kept telling you that all SSI was, was old age "insurance" and you kept saying I was wrong. And when I proved what it was, you refused to swallow your pride.

Swallow it. Say you were wrong.

Heh. "SAY YOU WERE WRONG! APOLOGIZE! YOU ARE PROUD!"

How old are you? Do your parents allow you to use the internet? Do you call all the other girls every night and agree what you are wearing to Jr. High class tomorrow?

Here's the definition of "insurance" according to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insurance. I hope that this source is acceptable to you:

in·sur·ance
   [in-shoor-uhns, -shur-] Show IPA
noun
1. the act, system, or business of insuring property, life, one's person, etc., against loss or harm arising in specified contingencies, as fire, accident, death, disablement, or the like, in consideration of a payment proportionate to the risk involved.

2. coverage by contract in which one party agrees to indemnify or reimburse another for loss that occurs under the terms of the contract.

3. the contract itself, set forth in a written or printed agreement or policy.

4. the amount for which anything is insured.

5. an insurance premium.

I'm not an expert on Social Security, but I understand part of it does pay for disability before one reaches 62/65/70. At least that's what Binder and Binder commercials say. So yeah, that very small part of SS could be considered insurance. But for the main part of social security - the part people mean when they say the words "social security" - i.e. the money it pays out when reach a certain age: I guess my first question is this: what "property, life, or one's person" is "insured" by Social Security? What "loss" does social security indemnify? Is my "property" insured by SS? Nope. If my house gets hit buy a tornado, SS will not pay me. Does SS insure my life? Nope. If I die, SS only pays a tiny death benefit of about $500. If SS is a life insurance policy, it's a pretty crappy one. Does SS insure my "person"? Nope. If my "person" is harmed by, say, a car wreck, SS won't pay me a penny.

So, social security fails to meet even the most basic dictionary definition of "insurance." It does not "reimburse" for any "loss," any 'fire", any "accident," any "property," any "life," any harm to "person." It only pays a tiny benefit for "death," and only rarely covers "disablement."

Social Security is not insurance. By definition. Now go back to watching all the episodes of Twilight you've TEVO'd, and come back after a few months of brewing on this rather stupid subject. I will then use facts and logic to run circles around you, again. And you will squeal "SAY YOU WERE WRONG! APOLOGIZE! YOU ARE PROUD!" again. And all will be right in the world.

Well, the world is just fine, but you are too proud to admit you are wrong about anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Sec ... ed_States)

Very first line in the wiki....

Social Security is a social insurance program...

The I (in your SSI contribution) stands for insurance. Social Security is old age insurance, or "social" insurance. It is insurance paid to people who are supposed to live a very long time. That is what it was intended for, for those who life well beyond the average lifespan. Originally, very few people were ever supposed to get it, you were supposed to be DEAD before you got your first check. It has since morphed into a government pension system for the purpose of underwriting cruises for our eldery to take for the last third of their life. The fact that we haven't increased the minimum age from 62 to 82, means we are bankrupting our children.

Swallow your pride.

-IB

[Jungle Rat]

Did IB participate in the Golden Gloves program as a kid growing up?

[sardis]

Oh well...

http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/02/autos/v ... ?hpt=hp_t2

[Professor Tiger]

As always, George Will (Peace be upon him), nails it:

If nominated, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum might not cause such subtraction. Both are conservatives, although of strikingly different stripes. Neither, however, seems likely to be elected. Neither has demonstrated, or seems likely to develop, an aptitude for energizing a national coalition that translates into 270 electoral votes.

If either is nominated, conservatives should vote for him. But suppose the accumulation of evidence eventually suggests that the nomination of either would subtract from the long-term project of making conservatism intellectually coherent and politically palatable. If so, there would come a point when, taking stock of reality, conservatives turn their energies to a goal much more attainable than, and not much less important than, electing Romney or Santorum president. It is the goal of retaining control of the House and winning control of the Senate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

-Very, very proud Professor Tiger

[Toemeesleather]

[Op Ed]

Christie to Buffet...

You don't want to be caught behind that guy in the buffet line.

[Professor Tiger]

Ahem...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1044.html

These are national head-to-head polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1171.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -2912.html

Four more years...

[bluetick]

4 more yearzzzz!!!!!!!!111!!!!!!!

[bluetick]

4 yearz of Op Ed!!!!!!1111111!!!!!!?!??

[Professor Tiger]

4 more yearzzzz!!!!!!!!111!!!!!!!

Book it.

Even if Obama somehow falls behind in the polls, he'll just pull a Bill Clinton and attack Iran next October. That's why he told Bibby to wait.

[Jungle Rat]

Thank God.

[Professor Tiger]

4 yearz of Op Ed!!!!!!1111111!!!!!!?!??

Op Ed... Op Ed... name sounds vaguely familiar...

[puterbac]

Why do so many conservative pundits mock college education when almost all of them attended college (some very good schools in fact) and would never try to convince their own kids that college is a waste of time?

I don't think people slam college education in general. I think its more to do with degrees that will never pay back the cost of the education. But when you get your degree in french lit or philosophy and can't find a job outside of the university structure, don't whine about your student loans.

I think people also value actual experience. If you have a prof who has never been outside academia telling you how something must be done versus someone who has successfully done it in the real world facing real world risk and reward, who should you listen to? Who has more gravitas? For most people you get the education and then go apply it and begin the real learning in the workplace. Once you are out of school a couple of years employers don't give a shit where you went or what your GPA was. They care about what you have done at your job.

We've got a guy at work whose son is a friggin coding genius in high school. Does he really need to get a degree to be succesful? Not sure. Depends if he wants to start his own thing or work for someone else. College won't hurt him, but it could retard his worth for a few years.

And there are probably a LOT of people in school who really don't belong there, but they qualified for the hope scholarship and the school wants the cash.

In the words of Judge Elihu Smails: The World needs ditch diggers too.

[10ac]

OpEd?
Ewww. Gross. Seriouly?