Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.nationalmemo.com/poll-clear- ... tion-cuts/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have a lot of thoughts about the results of this poll. For now I'll summarize them by saying it's a stark reminder of just how strong the effect of the entitlement mentality is. Also how selfish our elderly population is.

Bottom line is that with attitudes like this in place there is no hope for having a critical mass of politicians do what is necessary to keep this country from collapsing into chaos at some point.

The absolute worst generation is the one that followed the one that fought WWII. If they knew what a bunch of gimme douchenozzles their kids would turn out to be they would have thrown in the towel and stayed home. And worn prophylactics.

CID1990 wrote:The absolute worst generation is the one that followed the one that fought WWII. If they knew what a bunch of gimme douchenozzles their kids would turn out to be they would have thrown in the towel and stayed home. And worn prophylactics.

There are times, CID1990, that you impress me as an articulate conservative spokesman. And there are other times that you come across as a whiny bellhop. The above post evinces the latter.

Ivytalk wrote:

CID1990 wrote:The absolute worst generation is the one that followed the one that fought WWII. If they knew what a bunch of gimme douchenozzles their kids would turn out to be they would have thrown in the towel and stayed home. And worn prophylactics.

There are times, CID1990, that you impress me as an articulate conservative spokesman. And there are other times that you come across as a whiny bellhop. The above post evinces the latter.

That's because I have been drinking for about 3 hours now.

But the Boomers are still a pox on all of us and don't try to convince me otherwise. The contrast between them and their parents is like astrophysics and basket weaving.

Actually, my personal goal is to eschew Social Security permanently. I venerate my parents' values, and I think our two children share those values. I find the results of this poll depressing, but you can only do the best you can and influence positively those you're in a position to influence. If enough people do that, maybe there's hope.

Ivytalk wrote:Actually, my personal goal is to eschew Social Security permanently. I venerate my parents' values, and I think our two children share those values. I find the results of this poll depressing, but you can only do the best you can and influence positively those you're in a position to influence. If enough people do that, maybe there's hope.

I'm totally with you here. I showed my youngest (who's the most adept of the two at math and science) Chizzang's thread on the Harvard Soft Robot program. I told him if he ever wants to achieve Ivytalk level multi-generational wealth and elitism, he needs to pay attention and get good grades.

CID1990 wrote:The absolute worst generation is the one that followed the one that fought WWII. If they knew what a bunch of gimme douchenozzles their kids would turn out to be they would have thrown in the towel and stayed home. And worn prophylactics.

They say it helps if you cry.

We used to have Bob Hope, Johnny Cash, and Steve Jobs.
Now we have no Hope, No Cash and No Jobs.

Very encouraging poll!!

America continues to evolve for the better!

Ivytalk wrote:Actually, my personal goal is to eschew Social Security permanently. I venerate my parents' values, and I think our two children share those values. I find the results of this poll depressing, but you can only do the best you can and influence positively those you're in a position to influence. If enough people do that, maybe there's hope.

Good for you. Does that mean we should allow people who haven't made six figures their entire careers to die in abject poverty and sickness?

dbackjon wrote:Very encouraging poll!!

America continues to evolve for the better!

THIS! Trickle up poverty.

Baldy wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Very encouraging poll!!

America continues to evolve for the better!

THIS! Trickle up poverty.

Truth!



(JSO, scrambling to find the stats proving this wrong...)

Grizalltheway wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Actually, my personal goal is to eschew Social Security permanently. I venerate my parents' values, and I think our two children share those values. I find the results of this poll depressing, but you can only do the best you can and influence positively those you're in a position to influence. If enough people do that, maybe there's hope.

Good for you. Does that mean we should allow people who haven't made six figures their entire careers to die in abject poverty and sickness?

Don't be a jackass. For one thing, no way have I made six figures my whole career. For another, you leap to the simplistic conclusion, typical of liberals, that anyone who wants to try to help make the entitlement structure work -- by means testing, by increasing retirement ages, by reducing or stretching out benefits, by tightening eligibility -- automatically wants to screw the poor. As far as I'm concerned, if I take nothing out of the system, or if I begin drawing benefits at a later age, there's more available for others now. So go jump in a lake.

Ivytalk wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Good for you. Does that mean we should allow people who haven't made six figures their entire careers to die in abject poverty and sickness?

Don't be a jackass. For one thing, no way have I made six figures my whole career. For another, you leap to the simplistic conclusion, typical of liberals, that anyone who wants to try to help make the entitlement structure work -- by means testing, by increasing retirement ages, by reducing or stretching out benefits, by tightening eligibility -- automatically wants to screw the poor. As far as I'm concerned, if I take nothing out of the system, or if I begin drawing benefits at a later age, there's more available for others now. So go jump in a lake.

I apologize for misinterpreting your comments. I completely agree that we need to cut own on entitlement fraud and abuse. I doubt anyone other than the abusers themselves would disagree with that.

And I think I'll wait a few months before I start jumping in lakes again, thank you.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Don't be a jackass. For one thing, no way have I made six figures my whole career. For another, you leap to the simplistic conclusion, typical of liberals, that anyone who wants to try to help make the entitlement structure work -- by means testing, by increasing retirement ages, by reducing or stretching out benefits, by tightening eligibility -- automatically wants to screw the poor. As far as I'm concerned, if I take nothing out of the system, or if I begin drawing benefits at a later age, there's more available for others now. So go jump in a lake.

I apologize for misinterpreting your comments. I completely agree that we need to cut own on entitlement fraud and abuse. I doubt anyone other than the abusers themselves would disagree with that.

And I think I'll wait a few months before I start jumping in lakes again, thank you.

I don't blame you: those lake parasites can be a bitch!

It does tick me off that proposals containing suggestions for reforming entitlements, like Simpson-Bowles, are ignored by politicians with axes to grind. We're not too far from the day when entitlements will consume 70% of the federal budget, so people in a position to act should get moving.

First, I doubt that most of us on here are old enough to qualify for Social Security or Medicare. I can tell you that if I went through my whole life paying into a system I'd probably want to reap the benefits of it.

Second, and I'm not supporting this but just talking out loud. The pension system, outside of government sponsored workers is almost extinct. I don't know how many of these people had anything saved in investments for retirement, heck the majority of people aged 35-50 are going to be screwed because they have nothing saved..... The beat goes on...

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: THIS! Trickle up poverty.

Truth!



(JSO, scrambling to find the stats proving this wrong...)

All those graphs prove is the age-old adage "you have to HAVE money to make money".

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Truth!



(JSO, scrambling to find the stats proving this wrong...)

All those graphs prove is the age-old adage "you have to HAVE money to make money".

kalm wrote:Truth!



(JSO, scrambling to find the stats proving this wrong...)

I've already posted previously on the stats underlying the graph on the left. In proper perspective it can be seen that the only quntile that was close to flat in terms of inflation adjusted income gains over the period was the lowest 20%. The 2nd 20% and 3rd 20% gained substantially. What's been done in the graph above is that they designed the scale so that you can't perceive that. Or you could say that it's difficult to create a scale so that a graph combining all groups creates an accurate impression. Because the graph includes very high incomes in the millions a change in income from something like $70 K to $100 K is difficult to see. It's like if I have a graph where the Y axis goes up to 1000 and the X axis goes from 0 to 30. If I show a line sloping up from 1 to 2 over time it's going to look flat even though it represents a doubling. On the right they've presented a graph in terms of percent share of income. If they'd done a graph of percent gain in income all of the lines would be trending upwards. The top 1% would trend upwards the most and the bottom 20% would have a very shallow slope. But all would be generally trending up and the second and third 20% groups would be trending upwards substantially. Whoever put the graphs together just chose their scales and their metrics so as to create a false impression. It's called "lying with statistics." Or at least giving a false impression. Gives statistics a bad name.

JohnStOnge wrote:

kalm wrote:Truth!



(JSO, scrambling to find the stats proving this wrong...)

I've already posted previously on the stats underlying the graph on the left. In proper perspective it can be seen that the only quntile that was close to flat in terms of inflation adjusted income gains over the period was the lowest 20%. The 2nd 20% and 3rd 20% gained substantially. What's been done in the graph above is that they designed the scale so that you can't perceive that. Or you could say that it's difficult to create a scale so that a graph combining all groups creates an accurate impression. Because the graph includes very high incomes in the millions a change in income from something like $70 K to $100 K is difficult to see. It's like if I have a graph where the Y axis goes up to 1000 and the X axis goes from 0 to 30. If I show a line sloping up from 1 to 2 over time it's going to look flat even though it represents a doubling. On the right they've presented a graph in terms of percent share of income. If they'd done a graph of percent gain in income all of the lines would be trending upwards. The top 1% would trend upwards the most and the bottom 20% would have a very shallow slope. But all would be generally trending up and the second and third 20% groups would be trending upwards substantially. Whoever put the graphs together just chose their scales and their metrics so as to create a false impression. It's called "lying with statistics." Or at least giving a false impression. Gives statistics a bad name.

I'm CONVINCED that hell is you teaching a statistics class.

Well, a majority might say they want no medicare or SS cuts, but also an overwhelming majority say they want defict reduction, which is impossible to do without medicare & SS reform.

Poll from Jan 7-10
Debt, Gov't Dysfunction Rise to Top of Americans' Issue List
Fewer Americans now cite unemployment as most important problem
by Frank Newport
PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' concerns about the federal budget deficit and government dysfunction rose high enough in January to knock unemployment out of the top two slots on Gallup's "most important problem" list for the first time since 2009.



.....Guns and Gun Control at 4% of Mentions, Same as in December.....
http://www.gallup.com/poll/159830/debt- ... 0Headlines" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Released: January 24, 2013

Deficit Reduction Rises on Public's Agenda for Obama's Second Term
Public's Policy Priorities: 1994-2013

OVERVIEW

When Barack Obama took office four years ago, reducing the budget deficit was a middle-tier item on the public’s agenda. Only about half of Americans (53%) viewed it as a top policy priority in January 2009, placing it ninth on a list of 20 policy goals.

But as Obama begins his second term, only the economy and jobs are viewed as more important priorities for the coming year. Currently, 72% say that reducing the budget deficit should be a top priority, up 19 points from four years ago.


http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/24/ ... cond-term/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Again, note gun control & immigration pretty far down the list.

Good to see that protecting the environment is second on that list!

∞∞∞ wrote:Good to see that protecting the environment is second on that list!

And it should be pointed out that Global Warming is still down from 2009.

Pwns wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:Good to see that protecting the environment is second on that list!

And it should be pointed out that Global Warming is still down from 2009.

I think it should be down because we're doing more than our part to help. We haven't been perfect, but the US has done a fine job curbing man-made climate change while balancing economic and social needs. Compared to the rest of the world, US citizens should be proud for their efforts at the local, state, and national levels. Only Europe (particularly Scandinavians), Canada, and some South American nations have seriously taken on the challenge of climate change as much as we have.

Unfortunately our citizens always score lowly compared to other countries when asked where we prioritize environmentalism and we get crap for it, but when it comes to actions, there are few equals.