[jerome]

A president actively involve in education....this is mind blowing.

The fact he is actually taking an active role in education....and making a speech about it....

WTF

[deepcov3r]

(12-03-2012 08:12 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 07:54 PM)deepcov3r Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 07:51 PM)j r Wrote:  

Our present entitlement system won't survive the baby boomers in its present form.

To keep it really good the rich guys have to pay more. Too bad. They made their fortunes on the backs of all those workers.Who weren't smart enough to be wall street parasites. Please cite data sources as I did. The massive reduction in poverty (cited above) among the elderly is well worth tax increases on those with mid-six figure salaries and up.

Please explain your position on elderly poverty so we know who you are.

Bullshit. Social Security wasn't meant to be a tax but additional income for retirement. Hell, it wasn't suppose to replace retirement.

Now you want them to pay for your retirement because you didn't make yourself successful enough to take care of yourself.

Make their fortunes on the backs of people. haha No one held a gun to a employees head and made them work. Stop this nonsense. Anyone can create their own business and use leverage to become wealthy.

Instead of being lazy why don't you make the sacrifices, create a comnpany, hire people and take care of their retirement? You do realize not every rich person got his money from wall street?

Yes I realize some people owned restaurants, had other businesses. Which generally pay people-- as little as they can.

I'm actually not dependent on SS, so that's sort of moot. I don't want a country where the elderly rot in poverty.

Your position? And please respond with facts, not your ideology. The facts I cited above are that SS greatly reduced elderly poverty. Would you like that reversed? Please be clear.

Let's say you could have that 7% back, and all the people over 65 would have their SS checks stopped. You want that?
It's a simple question.

Maybe you are an island, an you don't care about your "inferiors." (people who don't/won't save a lot) You have the right to be a cold, tough guy.
Just be honest about it.

Let's focus on actual historical facts, rather than philosophy and speculation. Interested in what your response is (if you're interested) to the facts on elderly poverty I cited above. More interesting if you can cite some facts too.

If you want to let the old geezers rot, you have the right to that opinion. Just want it clarified. Because people aren't going to get a whole lot smarter, or save more. Human nature won't change. The "dumb" people, the "tough guys", or the "betas" like me.

[worldwidetraveler]

(12-03-2012 08:25 PM)deepcov3r Wrote:  

Everything will be fine if we believe in trickle-down. It's worked great the last 20 years. I'm actually not dependent on SS. Interested in what your response is (if you're interested) in the facts on elderly poverty I cited above.

What does trickle down economics have to do with a retirement fund?

Are you seriously trying to say that wealthy people are now responsible for taking care of the elderly? Why stop there... I think they should pay for the helpless animals on the streets or dental care for the single mothers who keep breeding because they get an extra $100 a month.

Where does it end?

Why would anyone want to take the risks of becoming successful if they have to start paying for everyone else. I put in 60 hours a week on my business for 5 years learning new skills and developing products. I didn't eat if I didn't make money. No handouts here.

I am starting to hit the payload and you think I should be paying for you're retirement? haha

You may not be reliant on social security but you don't have enough to retire comfortably otherwise you wouldn't have gone back to work.

Shit, I will just sit back and pay myself a modest income of 97k foreign income tax free and sip pina coladas instead of continuing to bust my ass all for the sake of everyone else.

I learned a long time ago that you can't rely on others. You have to take care of yourself. Social security isn't taking care of yourself.

[worldwidetraveler]

(12-03-2012 08:25 PM)deepcov3r Wrote:  

Yes I realize some people owned restaurants, had other businesses. Which generally pay people-- as little as they can.

I'm actually not dependent on SS, so that's sort of moot. I don't want a country where the elderly rot in poverty.

Your position? And please respond with facts, not your ideology. The facts I cited above are that SS greatly reduced elderly poverty. Would you like that reversed? Please be clear.

Let's say you could have that 7% back, and all the people over 65 would have their SS checks stopped. You want that?
It's a simple question.

Maybe you are an island, an you don't care about your "inferiors." (people who don't/won't save a lot) You have the right to be a cold, tough guy.
Just be honest about it.

Let's focus on actual historical facts, rather than philosophy and speculation. Interested in what your response is (if you're interested) to the facts on elderly poverty I cited above. More interesting if you can cite some facts too.

If you want to let the old geezers rot, you have the right to that opinion. Just want it clarified. Because people aren't going to get a whole lot smarter, or save more. Human nature won't change. The "dumb" people, the "tough guys", or the "betas" like me.

You edited your post.

I don't want to be dictated I have to help someone. I enjoy charity and there are things I would like to do in the future. I don't want the government to tell me I have to help others after I put in so much time helping myself.

If that is cold and uncaring, well, so be it. I don't have time for people who try to force me to take care of them. What is funny is I have seen welfare recipients with nicer cars, phones and televisions than I had while I was putting all of myself and money into my business. Now you want me to help those people out.

[deepcov3r]

(12-03-2012 08:01 PM)j r Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 07:54 PM)deepcov3r Wrote:  

Bullshit. Please cite your data sources as I did.

Look bud, I'm not trying to sell you anything. If you think social security and medicare are going to come through for you, more power to you. I wish you nothing but the best. Personally, I'm doing everything I can to make sure that I have other options.

I apologize for being rude with "bullshit." You were just expressing your opinion about it and I overreacted.

The good thing about the USA is we can disagree without throwing bombs at each other. I actually edited my response but you responded too quick.

[Nonpareil]

The kids I teach, even at age 10, are doing like 10 hours of homework a week and I think that's fucked up. Here is what I do;

- If you receive higher than a certain mark on the quiz or the assignment in class (usually 70% and up, but it depends; if I'm having a good day it's 60% and up, if I'm feeling sadistic, it's 80% and up), no homework.
- However, if you're bad, then you get homework...and big deal anyways, I assign maybe 15 minutes of work at the most.

I think it should be case by case; I'm not saying that there should never be homework (like suppose a certain kid is struggling, throw an extra bit of work at them to help them improve), but I question the merits of anything more than 90 minutes a night for students that aren't in university.