illinilaw08

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 04:12 PM) IIRC Obama passed a law that you can pay the income contingent plan for 25 years and then whatever is left just gets wiped off. So pay whatever the government thinks you can afford. Edit: either he did or that's always been the case, but yes, you pay for 25 years and the remainder is forgiven: http://studentaid.ed.gov/repay-loans/under...come-contingent Still requires payments for 25 years. On $15k, I'm struggling to see how student loans fit into your budget.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 01:47 PM) I don't know the solution either (i've offered voluntary sterilization programs in the past), but I do know that paying a family a "basic income" or "living wage" isn't going to magically solve the problem either. I don't think the money helps at all. You've raised their standard of living slightly, but not enough to stop the generational problem. And again, as is, before becoming a socialists wet dream, we already take care of those kids. They have every opportunity in the world to get out of those terrible situations and succeed. And why can't we stop them from having kids? I'm 100% serious when I say that if you become a parent and you can't support your kids you should be charged with child abuse. Maybe the kids need to be taken away. If you purposefully choose to be a stay at home mom to have a 3rd kid and then sign up for welfare (as a cousin of mine did recently) you should be charged with a crime. I'm less concerned with the two teenagers that make a stupid mistake than I am with the grown adult working a full time job at mcdonalds with four kids b****ing about how she isn't making enough money. The foster care system is significantly worse for the kid than the mom that stays home with them and signs up for welfare. I don't disagree with your point that people shouldn't be having kids they can't afford. I just don't see any reasonable way to stop them from doing that (other than making contraception free and readily available - like over the counter at pharmacies available).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 03:00 PM) Please provide an actual budget instead of just assertions about what you think people spend their money on. I pay $6k annually to repay my student loan debt. Lots of the unemployed and underemployed have significant student loan debt which cannot be discharged in bankruptcy and, if you let the interest get out of hand, will never be paid off... I'm not taking a position on the living wage issue, but I deal with bankruptcy in my professional life and there aren't a lot of people that can actually live on $15k a year... and that's taking the IRS standards of living (which are pretty brutal for debtors as it is) into account.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 02:24 PM) How are 401k's a failure? Mine has been massively successful. Yours has been quite successful, but we're going to have an entire generation of people who either didn't have the education, the disposable income, or just didn't care enough to contribute like you have who are not even close to having enough money to retire. When they get sick and their families can't or won't care for them, they will be the state's burden. From Forbes... http://www.forbes.com/sites/edwardsiedle/2...erican-history/

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 03:46 PM) If the job involves such a low level of skill that experience does not make you significantly better at your job, then you shoudn't make more just for being there longer. Haven't there been a bunch of articles written recently about how Costco is trouncing companies like Wal-Mart because they treat their employees really, really well? Treat employees well and they care more about where they work and they put more into their work. Treat someone like crap (even in a low skill job) and their productivity is going to be crap.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 12:53 PM) And society already does that. So again, what's a basic income/living wage that you all want. I want a dollar figure. Edit to your edit: kids are not a right! if you can't afford them YOU SHOULD BE PUT IN JAIL FOR CHILD ABUSE. Jenks, I've noticed that you frequently express your frustration with people that have kids they can't afford. I share that frustration, but I think you are simplifying the problem. The solution to that problem, however (and, again, I agree that it is a problem), is not to make life more terrible for the kid. Maybe the solution is to make access to basic birth control more readily available (since kids are going to have sex - birth control and condoms aren't cheap). The Conservative wing of this country cares a lot about providing rights to the unborn (and I'm not taking a position on that argument here) and then complain about the kids people can't afford to have. That logic derives from a place that believes people can and will abstain from their impulses to have sex when birth control isn't available. Kids aren't a right, well that's fine. But you can't stop them from having kids. So you punish the kids for the poor decision of that parent? And putting the parents in jail for child abuse (which I assume was made in jest) makes things even WORSE for the kid. I don't know what the solution to that particular problem is, but to me anyway, the solution is not to stand up and say "well, so and so, you just shouldn't have had a kid in the first place!" So what's your solution?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 15, 2013 -> 04:26 PM) Tennesse State, UIC Bruce Pearl set the program back years. National Championship game in St. Louis. Gordon. Jamar Smith car crash. There have been plenty of really bad days for the Illinois basketball program. The program is in fine shape right now. Today is just a setback...

QUOTE (Boogua @ Nov 15, 2013 -> 11:21 AM) Exactly. When he decommited from Louisville originally he still had an offer. It was his choice. He just didn't want to be behind Lyle it seemed. He should have reopened his recruitment immediately when Lyle left. Should Snider have told Groce earlier? Absolutely. Would it have mattered? No. Illinois doesn't miss out on any other targets as a result of Snider flipping on Signing Day (unlike the Gordon situation where he was committed for years). I'm not going to kill Snider for changing his mind. It sucks that he's not going to Illinois. He's a 17 year old kid that changed his mind. In an ideal world, coaches wouldn't mess with kids who were already committed. But that's not the world of recruiting (note that I also think in an ideal world, coaches wouldn't pull offers from kids either - idealism!).

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 13, 2013 -> 01:27 PM) Apparently nobody can catch our class at this point, although there can be movement in other teams. This is based on Scout right? IF Illinois were to land Cliff, the classes would stack up as: Ohio State 16 - Russel 19 - KBD 54 - Tate N/R - Bell Illinois 5 - Alexander 32 - Snider 47 - Black N/R - Finke That's pretty close. I'm not sure how Scout figures their class ranks, but those are two great classes IF Illinois manages to land Cliff and there isn't much between them. Now, Groce still needs to land Cliff for this discussion to even matter... but fun to discuss nonetheless.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Nov 5, 2013 -> 06:27 PM) Anybody still wasting 30 minutes of their week on HIMYM? Last night's episode was so god awful but I'm in it until the end. Alan Sepinwall summed up the downfall of HIMYM much more eloquently than I ever could... http://www.hitfix.com/whats-alan-watching/...ttle-tenderness

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 08:51 AM) It is, and I think it's a fair/good idea. How insurance works, I'm not sure you know or not (so don't take this as preaching), is you will come to us, and show us your employment roster...what's the average age of your employees, etc...the premium cost is based on these factors...and the negotiated group cost is then given to your employer. Now, how your employer divides that cost is completely up to them. That said, any employer that charges everyone the same amount of money, IMO, aren't being very nice. If you're CEO is paying the same for healthcare as your janitor, for example...you're CEO is a dick. Partners at my law firm pay nothing. Staff and associates pay... a lot. BCBS' model is admirable and one I wish more companies followed...

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 01:28 PM) While part of the calculation, you are claiming that publicly traded insurance companies are artificially lowering their profit margins by paying out to executives...and again, no, that's just not the case. Investors wouldn't accept that, as it's their money, and they have the collective power, not some CEO inflating his salary to "hide profits". That's just laughable. There is an incentive for any for profit insurance company to NOT pay claims, or to not insure people who, by virtue of losing life's lottery, have conditions that would cost the insurance company more to insure. Further, there's an incentive to shareholders to have the insurance companies maximize profit (the rationale behind the massive bonuses and salaries that CEOs and other high level executives obtain). When the insurance companies control the access to health care and are motivated by profit, the unlucky are excluded. That's why for profit, publicly traded, health insurance is a poor system to build a national health care system on.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 12:43 PM) It makes no sense to me that a health young person who doesn't use health care as often needs to pay MORE for coverage. If anything, they should pay the least amount out of anyone. They still do pay the least. They just pay more than before so others pay less. The ACA changes are hitting my pocketbook as well (I will miss catastrophe plans...), but I agree with SS that the new system is a better system than pre-ACA healthcare. I would have preferred single payor to the ACA but that's not happening any time soon.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 12:26 PM) I don't think the price going up has changed anyone's decision not to go to law school the last decade. Until you get the degree you're just signing a meaningless piece of paper obligating you to decades of repayment. At 18 or 22 you're more concerned about the hot blonde that just smiled at you at the financial aid office. This! Especially for people who go straight through from undergrad to law school and have never really had to use that paycheck to budget. My parents saved and paid for my undergrad. Money I earned working during the summer took care of my expenses (read, cheap beer). Grad school was on me. There isn't a day that goes by where I don't regret the voluntary decision to go into debt. And I think my law school debt is probably fairly manageable by comparison to a lot of my peers. The other issue with law school is that there is a sense that there are plenty of big dollar legal jobs to go around out of law school and that just isn't the case. So plenty of 22 year olds signing that meaningless piece of paper with decades of repayment are assuming that they will have that 6 figure job out of school and repayment will be a breeze and are operating with faulty information. In conclusion, don't go to law school...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 11:41 AM) I bet approximately 1% of people that go to med school/law school are able to actually afford it. The rest sign away their financial freedom for decades take out loans. This. Doesn't help things either that the Bankruptcy Code makes it virtually impossible to get rid of student loan debt so it sticks with people for the rest of their lives. I really feel for the kids who graduated from law school after I did when the legal market for new grads contracted horribly. I was lucky... went to school in state with a decent scholarship... and I still expect to have my second mortgage (student loans) weigh me down for the next 15 years. I can't even fathom the debt some doctors I know were saddled with after med school... lawyers have it easy by comparison.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 01:24 PM) Living in an urban area with bad public schools, 3 kids under age of 12 Mortgage payment (includes taxes and insurance) $2,000 Utilities/Monthly Fixed bills $1,000 (family cell phone plan with 1 GB data plan, HBO Direct TV package, car/life insurance etc.) Food $1,000 (not cutting coupons using discount stores) Non-Consumable spending (kids sports, clothing, misc entertainment) $500 Private School (not high school) $900 1 car payment (2 cars in home, new car every 5 years) $350 You can't get rich here but it makes for a comfortable life on a day to day basis on $70K net pay. Also limits your annual vacations to one very vanilla trip. You didn't include repayment of student loans or the monthly bill to fill the gas tank (which might be included in the utilities/monthly fixed bills). Student loans are the worst...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 16, 2013 -> 09:10 AM) I read somewhere this morning that the US has defaulted twice, and in both situations nothing dramatic happened. The first was with Madison in 1813 or 1814, the second was under Carter. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economi...he-printer.html Also, in terms of the doomsday scenario, haven't various states (like Illinois) been defaulting on its debts for years? And we're still around, right? Obviously scales are different and Illinois is the furthest thing from a model government/economy, but still. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-07/a...man-s-fall.html About halfway down this article, they describe the differences between 1979 and a default today. Basically, in 1979, the debt deal was done before the deadline, but "severe technical difficulties" at the Treasury caused payments to go out late. And even that caused yield rates to jump by half a percent. Obviously the US in 1814 was not the basis of the global economy. In an actual default, money-market funds will be required to sell off their US Treasuries. Additionally, given the impact of Lehman's default on $500+ billion, it's reasonable to believe that the world stock markets will go into free fall, and the cost of borrowing will go through the roof. So who will a default hurt most? Hey! The middle class! You know, those of us with our retirement in 401ks and the equity in homes as our other major asset. And Jenks, you are smart enough to recognize that the bond market in Illinois is very, very different than a default by the nation upon whose currency the rest of the global economy is based upon. Even for people who are not completely convinced a default would be catastrophic, why tempt fate? Edit: I'm especially on edge about this right because the wife just took a job in Denver. Our house is on the market and, if things stay as is, we have a reasonable amount of equity and a good chance that the house sells on the timeframe we need it to sell on. If interest rates go through the roof, this could get really bad for people like us (who need to sell) in a hurry. That this is a completely manufactured crisis makes the whole thing significantly worse.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 09:38 AM) Out-of-pocket costs wouldn't change if it was the same plan? I think premiums are going to rise for a lot of younger people who (1) aren't offered insurance through an employer; (2) don't qualify for a subsidy; and (3) get by on what essentially amounts to a catastrophe plan right now. Those specific plans likely don't cover what is required to be covered by the ACA, and the rates will necessarily tick up because of the addition of those with pre-existing conditions to the exchanges. On the other hand, premiums should come down for a lot of people who either qualify for subsidies or who have pre-existing conditions. I'm rooting for the ACA to succeed (mostly because I'm not sure there will ever be another time where there is the political will to change healthcare in this country for the better), but there will definitely be people who are adversely effected financially by this bill.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 18, 2013 -> 11:38 AM) How many of that 26% are shopaholics, ADHD or some other similar 'disorder' that gets treatment nowadays but is not the same as crazy person hearing voices in their head? I agree that there are problems with mental health care in this country, but Jake and Tex were touching on some important points earlier in this thread: 1) The vast, vast majority of people with severe mental health issues do not commit mass murders (note, before any of the noted conservatives on this board jump in, I agree that the same can be said about legal gun owners and I concede that point); 2) Mental health care is a very expensive, never ending issue. The parent from an upper middle class family who has a child with severe autism has very different access to good, continuing health care than the person from a middle to lower income family (not to mention the differences in sponsored care from state to state). 3) Locking up everyone that has, at any point, heard voices, or who has been diagnosed with a mental health disorder is a complete non-starter. It's cost prohibitive and it's, frankly, inhumane. 4) Early diagnosis and treatment is critical. Investing in real meaningful health care is the only way to really make an impact here. The only entities with the resources to invest in that access are states (some of them anyway) and the feds. 5) Finally, the most important point when linking mental health to mass shootings. Diagnosis it, flag people with mental health issues, perform the background check, and prevent legal gun ownership. The point here is that restricting rights to guns generally is not the answer to this particular question, nor is the answer "lock them up!" The answer is to diagnose and treat serious mental health issues while at the same time creating, and enforcing, rules that prevent those diagnosed from legally obtaining access to firearms.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 23, 2013 -> 01:28 PM) Yeah, I really look forward to the Hillary presidency so i can be called a sexist instead of a racist for a change every time i disagree with her. Not that I should need to say this, but disagreeing with someone's policies and calling them a b**** are two very different things. The former is rational. The latter is probably pretty sexist.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Aug 15, 2013 -> 08:16 AM) Jozy Altidore and Michael Bradley are f***ing phenomenal. Johannsson looked really good in his short time too. Really pumped for the next two WCQs Could not agree more. Jozy is playing with a ton of confidence, and the goal on the free kick was incredible. The best thing is that Jozy and Bradley will be in their primes for two more World Cup cycles. Still need to sort out the backline (I don't really trust Evans, Castillo and F. Johnson always seem better in the MF, and there are issues at CB). Would really, really like to see Brooks get cap tied in the next set of qualifiers, but would JK pair him with Besler with that much on the line (@ CR and home Mexico right?). Brooks is too good of a talent to give any opportunity to back out, so it will be interesting to see what JK does in September.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 12, 2013 -> 09:17 AM) Even with both me and my wife injuring our knees on our first hike at Glacier, we had an incredible time. The injuries forced us to modify our plans a little bit (and I couldn't believe that none of the camp stores, aside from the one way down in Two Medicine, sell ace bandages), but we got to see two different areas we didn't originally plan on. We drove down to Two Medicine for an afternoon and went up to Waterton Lakes National Park in Canukistan last Friday. Pushed through the injuries to do the Grinnell Glacier hike, too. We'll definitely be back here. Now we are trying to plan our next trip. We're hoping for the Grand Canyon, but we're probably way too late to book anything down at the Phantom Ranch at the bottom. We're also considering a Pacific NW swing (Crater, Portland, Seattle, Rainer, Olympic, maybe Vancouver) and a Utah trip (Arches, Bryce, Zion, SLC), and maybe even Acadia. If anyone has any recommendations on these or other day-hiking oriented trips, it'd be much appreciated. We're focusing on National Parks right now as a starting point, but we're definitely not limited to them and not trying to visit every last one. We both loved hiking around Lake Tahoe and rafting in the Laurel Highlands in SW Pennsylvania. Here's a shot of the Granite Park Chalet from the Highline Trail, right before we started the steep descent down the Loop Trail (dropping over 2000 ft in 3.8 miles) and ran into a black bear right at the top. Ironically, this remote mountain chalet with pit toilets had the best cell reception I found on the west side of the park. Glacier is the best national park ever. Hands down. Of course, I'm somewhat biased since I spent time there every summer for the first 22 years of my life... the benefit of parents who were teachers. On Grinnell Glacier, my Dad has a cool side by side photo of the glacier when they first went there in the 70s and one from five or six years back. The difference in size is absolutely incredible. Waterton has some terriffic day hikes as well (Carthew Summit and the Tamarack Trail are especially good). If you head back up there when you are healthy, make sure to spend a day or two in Waterton. For day hiking trips, the Canadian Rockies (Banff, Yoho, and Jasper) are breathtaking.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Aug 8, 2013 -> 08:46 AM) This is exactly why the rules are the way they are. If you allow players any kind of income like this, you are opening the door for unlimited money funneled from donors to players. The only change the NCAA can really consider making is a stipend that is fixed and given to every player in FBS. In fact, mandating a stipend for FBS players might cause a nice side benefit in preventing all these small-time FCS schools from moving up to FBS if they know it's going to cost them a lot more. Slippery slope arguments are the worst. I'm a pretty big homer for the NCAA, but it's the height of stupidity that, to use an example I heard on the radio yesterday, Jeremy Bloom couldn't get endorsements as a professional skiier, but Colorado could sell jerseys with his number on them. Let the kids do car commercials, let them get endorsements with Nike, Addidas, whoever. And if you are worried that it will provide additional ammo to schools with boosters with big pockets, put a cap on the total amount of income the kids can get from the endorsements ($150k or something). It's stupid to say that a kid can't profit off of his own likeness while at the same time saying that the schools can sell their jerseys without the names on them.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Aug 5, 2013 -> 08:04 AM) I also don't like the Dempsey move at all, especially being in a World Cup year, but hopefully he can secure a loan back to the EPL (Everton or Sunderland perhaps?) after the MLS season for a little while MLS season starts in March right? That means Dempsey will have about 6 to 8 weeks to get match fit before he is called into USMNT camp. With the amount Seattle has invested in Dempsey, I'd be rather surprised if he was loaned out. Dempsey's a pro and, with some games under his belt heading into the World Cup, I think he'll be just fine. It's well known that Dempsey liked living in London (both Fulham and Spurs are based there) and that he wanted to play Champions League soccer. If he wasn't in Spurs plans this year, not that big a surprise for him to jump at the huge money Seattle was throwing his way rather than chasing the Champions League in a different country.

Heading to the Southern unit of Kettle Moraine this weekend. For anyone that has been up that way, any recommendations on hikes? I've hiked and camped extensively out West, but never hit Wisconsin.