or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

COLA - Page 2

post #41 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Education is essential and should never be cut. There is a statistic that the U.S. ranks in 17th place in Science and Math which is really sad indeed.Number one is Finland.There are other programs to cut which is not that important to our economy.
 

Of course education should be cut. For all the money dumped into education since WW2 there has been no gain in student performance. Let's cut back to WW2 levels. 

post #42 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

One potential problem with this line of reasoning is that, for obvious reasons, you are focussing on schools. Unfortunately, the same risk is posed to many other types of institution and business, since most do not employ armed guards. They are all largely defenseless, making the shear scale of this problem huge.

 

Other institutions and businesses are free to pursue protection in most cases.  In fact, many have armed personnel.  What they don't have is 500 kids sitting in perfect little cubicles, waiting to be attacked.  

 

 

 

Quote:
And, despite your robust defense of the idea, there really is no precedent that I can think of for arming a segment of the civilian population in that manner. How might that work, even just in schools? Ask for volunteers? Require certain personnel, such as the Principal, to be armed? Who pays? Who trains them? Who certifies them as competent? What about liability and insurance? It looks to me like a very difficult idea to implement. Can you really see that working?

 

I absolutely see it working.   There are multiple potential sources of funding, and multiple options for deployment.  It may even just involve principals and select others carrying Tasers.  Obviously, training, insurance and certification would have to be handled in some way the local, state or federal government (the last one being my very last choice).   

 

 

Quote:
The LE or certified private security personnel approaches seem like the only practicable solutions, 

 

Why?  You're at the least the second person to make a statement like that, as if it somehow true.  There are many other solutions.  

 

 

Quote:
but again, who pays? School budgets are tight enough. And again, can we, or should we just stop at protecting schools?

 

There are, again, multiple options.  School budgets are tight right now, but that doesn't mean they couldn't find a way to absorb some of the costs.   Additionally, some or even all funding could come from state coffers.  Assuming the option we used was to have at least one LE officer in every school, we'd really just be talking about the personnel cost of one person.  It could be done even more cheaply, too.  There could be a handful of people in a school with access to weapons.  The only expense there would be training, certification, and insurance.  It's not free, but it's not millions or even hundreds of thousands, either (per district).    

 

The point is this:  Most schools are defenseless against the kind of attack that happened in Newtown.  My only argument is that we need some defense against tha,t beyond lockdown procedures currently in place.   This might armed personnel, or access to a weapon, or even non-lethal deterrents carried by certain personnel.  Training, certification, insurance and what not are all obstacles, but they are obstacles that we need to overcome if we are to better protect students and staff.  

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #43 of 66

After 9-11 we put air marshals on many flights. Plain clothes to look like ordinary passengers yet armed with pistols for any threat. Doing the same kind of thing in schools is not so implausible.  

post #44 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Good for you.  You still have no idea what the security situation is in an average school.   We are not just talking about "one of the worst schools."  We're talking about tens of thousands of schools.  I happen to teach at one of the best schools in the state, and I can tell you we are defenseless.  

 

And you do?

 

"n 2009, nearly all students (99 percent) ages 12–18 reported that they had observed the use of at least one of the selected security measures at their schools....Approximately 68 percent of students reported the presence of security guards and/or assigned police officers,"

 

page vii

 

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/iscs11.pdf

 

But hey...don't let facts get in the way.

 

 

Quote:
Why?  Because you say so?  

 

Because a lot I've met have been viscerally anti-gun is why.  Now that's merely anecdotal but I listed my family background to indicate that I know a lot of educators socially.

 

If you're going to claim that many teachers are not anti-gun I'm simply going to laugh at you.

 

 

Quote:

Obviously, training is required.  I don't know what you think "regular practice" means.  

 

 

The bare minimum would be what LEOs get.  Which is probably a lot less than you imagine.

 

Quote:

Ridiculous, on so many levels.  First, the entire point is that EVERY school needs an armed guard of some sort (or people with access to the tools needed to defend students and staff).  Sandy Hook showed us that.   A lunatic shot his way in.  The principal and others lunged for him.  Guess what?  They all died long before police arrived, so don't give me your bullshit about police tactics and response times.  

 

Police were assigned to Columbine...and evidently over half of schools already where needed. 

 

 

Quote:
Ah, now we're drawing false equivalency and using strawmen.  Excellent.   The failure of your ridiculous and uninformed argument is now complete.   

 

Nope.  Budgets are budgets and well trained LEOs are expensive.  Someone's got to pay for them.  Since it's security for a school it would most likely come out of the education budget like any other overhead cost.  Handwaving the expenses is like your treatment of the security profile at Sidwell is something that fiscally irresponsible liberals are supposed to do.

 

Not a math teacher I hope.

post #45 of 66
Not much point in keeping this up. Not only are you uninformed, but you think you ARE. You're also engaging in straw men, speculative argument ("if you say...") and misdirection. Enjoy.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #46 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Not much point in keeping this up. Not only are you uninformed, but you think you ARE. You're also engaging in straw men, speculative argument ("if you say...") and misdirection. Enjoy.

 

Given that you are making the amusing assertion that teachers are typically pro-gun or that many schools already to not have on-site police presence it is pretty funny.  Enjoyable is kinda a stretch though.

post #47 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

Given that you are making the amusing assertion that teachers are typically pro-gun

 

 

No.  That's what you're saying I'm saying.  

 

 

 

Quote:
or that many schools already to not have on-site police presence it is pretty funny.  Enjoyable is kinda a stretch though.

 

Most schools don't.  Period. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #48 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

COLA is to ensure that the purchasing power of SS and SSI benefits is not eroded by inflation.It is based on the percentage in the CPI for urban wage earners and clerical workers from the 3rd quarter of the last year. If their is no increase there is no COLA.I need COLA because my only source of living is my SS pension when I retired at age 62 .That is why this is essential to me and millions of others on SS and SSI.
 

 

Ahh!!!!  the crux of your problem!

 

Social Security was never meant to be an "only source of living" ... it was designed to be a SUPPLEMENT for indigent and disabled citizens.

 

Only later was it expanded to ALL citizens ... and then to ALL residents, regardless of citizenry or legal status or ever having contributed a dime to the pot.

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #49 of 66
Thread Starter 

What are trying to bring out that some people on SS do not deserve to have this? Without this we cannot exist today.
 

post #50 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

What are trying to bring out that some people on SS do not deserve to have this? Without this we cannot exist today.
 

 

I could easily show examples where many people receiving SS benefits do not NEED them ... but I am NOT saying that they don't DESERVE them.

 

You state that, "Without this we cannot exist today." Now THAT is patently false.  Your existence might certainly be DIFFERENT without SS, but not impossible.  It would certainly cause people to need to plan for their retirement themselves (or continue working)... but this country/government existed for 150 years withOUT Social Security, and people (society as a whole) were no worse off then.

 

People make choices... sometimes those choices have consequences that affect the rest of their lives.  They should not be allowed to take from others just to shield them from the consequences of their own bad choices...

If that's the case, then why should ANYone make ANY hard choices?... just always do whatever feels best at the time, to hell with the consequences, and later in life you can just take whatever you need from others.

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #51 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

What are trying to bring out that some people on SS do not deserve to have this? Without this we cannot exist today.
 

 

Let me tell you a little story.  About 3 years ago, my father was at a party, talking to some of the other guests.  In the group was a very liberal woman, who was spouting off about this and that.  My dad ignored all of this...until it came to social security.  This woman complained that her father was turning 65, and wasn't going to get enough from SS to live comfortably.  She argued for more benefits, asking "what is he supposed to do?"   Finally, my father had enough.  He walked up to this woman, and said:  "My grandfather retired in his 60s, then went back to work shortly thereafter.  He ended up dying on the job at age 92.  And do you know why he was still working?  Because he needed the money."  He then walked away.  

 

 

I will bet you that you did not need to retire at 62.  I also bet that if SS never existed, you would have planned your own retirement.  The entire culture is now a reflection of the attitude you demonstrate.  People think they deserve to retire, because "that's just what you do."   SS was never intended to provide everyone with a comfortable retirement, but that's what people expect.  You're living proof.  The system is broken and will soon by bankrupt if it is not reformed.  That is what you should be concerned about.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #52 of 66
Thread Starter 

What about the disabled people who cannot work for a living what happens to them? They need SS disability to live on or to you put them out to pasture to wait to die.I never had a pension like you have and therefore I retired at 62 years old which truthfully i made a mistake and waited till 65 to get full retirement and worked longer.I miss working now.There are people I met here in Arizona who still work at age 90 years at fast food places.Again they still get SS benefits cause their wages are not enough to exist on for themselves or their spouses.SS is solvent for many more years and it is a private system that is not causing the debt to increase like the Republicans want us to think it does.
 

post #53 of 66

There's a lot of scammers getting on SS as "disabled". 

post #54 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

There's a lot of scammers getting on SS as "disabled". 
So?

What would cost more? Further red tape, more staff and closer scrutiny to eliminate the one or two "scammers", or the cost of some of the scammers getting through? And how many more people with legitimate needs would slip through the cracks if we suddenly made things more difficult for everyone. This kind of logical thinking is something you conservatives seem incapable of. You would throw the baby out with the bath water.
post #55 of 66
Thread Starter 

There are scammers everywhere in life.Tonton is right are you going to eliminate those people who are on SS disability because in your paranoid mind there might be a few scammers involved.Gimme a break!
 

post #56 of 66

Is this going this route?

 

 

There are a few people who ____ so let's stop everyone from ____  .

 

engage in voter fraud, voting

 

shoot people with guns, owning guns

 

 

The second sounds great.  The former, not so.  But some will try to argue these all or nothing angles as they will support their opinions.

 

Careful.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #57 of 66

Well this is what happens with all these programs. First is just for the disabled and old people. Then the definition of disabled is expanded. Enforcement slacks off. Then people wonder why it's so expensive. Well it started off for disabled people, e.g. "truly cannot work", then expanded to "maybe shouldn't work", then every personality disorder is grounds for disability and ends with late night TV ads for lawyers that can get you on SS disability. The definition of child goes from up to 18 then 21 now 25 under ObamaCare. No we don't have a spending problem!

 

But I'm being a cruel heartless dick. I hate children, old people and cripples. My 72 year old mother is still working but I have to read about some whinny bitch complain about a slight adjustment to COLA while I try to figure out how to keep her grandchildren out of China's debtors prison.

post #58 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

What about the disabled people who cannot work for a living what happens to them?
 

Anyone truly disabled would qualify.  

 

Quote:
 They need SS disability to live on or to you put them out to pasture to wait to die

 

Again, if truly disabled an unable to work, they should be taken care of at a level that is dignified. 

 

Quote:
I never had a pension like you have and therefore I retired at 62 years old which truthfully i made a mistake and waited till 65 to get full retirement and worked longer.I miss working now.There are people I met here in Arizona who still work at age 90 years at fast food places.Again they still get SS benefits cause their wages are not enough to exist on for themselves or their spouses

 

There you go...you admit you didn't need to retire.  But now you're complaining about not getting COLAs fast enough.  The fact is you retired because you thought you could.  That in itself is fine.  But don't you dare turn around and complain you're not getting enough money from SS.  

 

Quote:

SS is solvent for many more years and it is a private system that is not causing the debt to increase like the Republicans want us to think it does.

 

 

lol.gif  Wow, you really are ignorant. I don't even mean that to be an insult...I simply mean you are that lacking in knowledge on this topic. SS is not a private system.  It is a very public system.  Not only are the funds you contributed as a worker not held for you, but they aren't even sequestered from the general fund.  Congress has robbed the so-called SS surplus for years to make it seem like our deficits are not as bad as they are.  The Bush-era government predicted it would start paying out more than it took in in the year 2017.  Well, guess what...it's already happened.  Actually, it's happened the past two years. The  Social Security Trust Fund is now projected to be exhausted by just 2024...or 11 years from now.  

 

I know you and Congressional Dems (and many Republicans) don't want this to be true.  But it is.  Their plan is to oppose all reforms of the system in order to justify higher taxes on workers down the road.  By then, we'll have another manufactured crisis for them to run on.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So?

What would cost more? Further red tape, more staff and closer scrutiny to eliminate the one or two "scammers", or the cost of some of the scammers getting through? And how many more people with legitimate needs would slip through the cracks if we suddenly made things more difficult for everyone. This kind of logical thinking is something you conservatives seem incapable of. You would throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

The problem is not just enforcement.  The problem is philosophy...specifically who we think should get disability.  See below...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Well this is what happens with all these programs. First is just for the disabled and old people. Then the definition of disabled is expanded. Enforcement slacks off. Then people wonder why it's so expensive. Well it started off for disabled people, e.g. "truly cannot work", then expanded to "maybe shouldn't work", then every personality disorder is grounds for disability and ends with late night TV ads for lawyers that can get you on SS disability. The definition of child goes from up to 18 then 21 now 25 under ObamaCare. No we don't have a spending problem!

 

But I'm being a cruel heartless dick. I hate children, old people and cripples. My 72 year old mother is still working but I have to read about some whinny bitch complain about a slight adjustment to COLA while I try to figure out how to keep her grandchildren out of China's debtors prison.

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #59 of 66
Thread Starter 

You are one miserable sub human to state this about kids , cripple and old people. Who knows WHAT COMES AROUND GOES AROUND .Think about what is happening on your own country not so much China!
 

post #60 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

You are one miserable sub human to state this about kids , cripple and old people. Who knows WHAT COMES AROUND GOES AROUND .Think about what is happening on your own country not so much China!
 

 

I am worried about my own country. Not just today but 50 years from now.


Edited by FloorJack - 1/16/13 at 8:22am
post #61 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

You are one miserable sub human to state this about kids , cripple and old people. Who knows WHAT COMES AROUND GOES AROUND .Think about what is happening on your own country not so much China!
 


He was being facetious.  Oh. My. God. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #62 of 66
Thread Starter 

There are better ways to kid around than this he posts.
 

post #63 of 66

Yea 'cause the internet is serious business!

post #64 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

There are better ways to kid around than this he posts.
 

 

He wasn't "kidding around."   Do you know what facetious means?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #65 of 66
Thread Starter 

It means flippant like your attitude in your posts Dave.
 

post #66 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

It means flippant like your attitude in your posts Dave.
 

 

My name's not Dave, marv.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider