lostfan

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 5, 2013 -> 10:43 AM) Is this really surprising, though? I thought everyone already knew this. No, I think it's noteworthy because of the specificity of it. I don't know that there has been a massive document leak like this before.

There will be a time within the next two or three decades where the program pays out more than it's taking in through taxes. That is NOT the same thing as insolvency. But of all things to fix this has got to be the easiest. It'd take a couple of senators 20 minutes to write a bill.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 5, 2013 -> 10:17 AM) Close, it's "old age, survivor and disability insurance". OASDI. (I learned that in ~2006 because everyone got uncomfortable writing posts about how we needed to save SS). You are right. I was thinking of that acronym and I wrote the other one absent-mindedly.

Am I the only one on this board who cosplays?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 5, 2013 -> 10:01 AM) No, what's this you speak of? http://www.icij.org/offshore It was originally on one of the left-leaning political sites I go to but now it's on the washington post and this link comes from there.

Anyone hear about the leak of financial data on offshore accounts?

BTW, Social Security makes a lot more sense if you think of it as an insurance program rather than something like a pension. Actually now that I think about it, its official name is Social Security and Disability Insurance.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 5, 2013 -> 09:49 AM) There are a lot of misconceptions about Social Security out there, and repeated enough over time, they've become accepted facts. And they'll bang this drum until they convince every last young voter that Social Security will be gone before they're eligible for it. It won't be long now, as soon as the boomers step aside, they'll have convinced every young idiot out there that social security needs drastic reforms, and that you should trust them with these reforms since the alternative is never collecting anyway. And that's how they'll get their hands on that money. It's not insolvent, and won't be for many many years, over which that insolvency can be fixed quite easily. The problem is, they don't want to fix it, because they want to be able to invest that money the same way they "invested" the pensions. I know, I'm crazy. This is something that they say so they can, quite literally, steal your money.

He wants Republicans to meet him halfway on revenues and show that he's willing to come off something important to him, but... f***, does he have to sound so enthusiastic about it?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 5, 2013 -> 09:29 AM) Kind of how I feel about you on my Facebook feed, sometimes you need to be muted, too. Touche.

The idea of Social Security contributing to the deficit is a big con job, it's literally impossible for Social Security to go bankrupt unless suddenly people stop being born. I guess people are ok with being told otherwise, though. It's not that it's insolvent, it's just been pillaged.

I grew up thinking Hawk was the most awesome thing ever and even still, some of his one-liners are great and I concede there's nobody else like him. However in the past few years, on a day by day basis, he's intolerable, boring, and at times embarrassing and on MLB.tv ill mute the game, and it was so painful to listen to him when they played the Twins I'd actually listen to the Twins broadcast... It was that bad.

Noah is actually injured, and playing aggravates it and makes it take longer to recover. Pretty much the exact opposite of Rose's situation where playing is actually the final stage of rehab.

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 4, 2013 -> 03:53 PM) Me too. Few celebrity deaths really hit me, but when I was abroad, his blog entries on London really meant a lot to me. Those blog entries were so intimate, I felt like I knew him. Gonna be missed. He was a true icon and there aren't too many people like him. Supporter of the arts (much more than that later of course) and one of the people you can say legitimately improved society and culture with his existence. We lost a great one.

I'm actually really bummed about Ebert, I loved the guy. He was a Chicago icon. RIP

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 4, 2013 -> 01:56 PM) Which is exactly why I couldn't give two s***s about any American outrage and desire to bomb NK, because it's not really our asses on the line. It should be a requirement that if you want the US to go to another war, you are obligated to permit, say, 5% more in income taxes to pay for it.

Oh, if you mean Seoul, yeah that's different. They can't possibly do as much damage to the US as the US could do to them (within a couple of hours, if they wanted to)

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 4, 2013 -> 01:27 PM) And, like in any MAD situation, it's more likely that hostilities will break out due to one side miscalculating or misinterpreting the other and making a move for first-strike than because one side made a deliberate decision to invade. Unless NK has hundreds of nukes and the capability to deliver them across the ocean, this isn't a MAD scenario. This is more like a "oooo look at the pretty glowing mountains" scenario.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 4, 2013 -> 10:56 AM) That's what it at least appears. Could Adidas have some sort of insurance on him missing a season? Considering they pay him more than the Bulls, dragging out "The Return", and collecting several million seems like good business. There is something more at play than his knee. He's been practicing at a high level too long for that. Maybe it is just Reggie, but I'm thinking there is more. Adidas has nothing to gain from him not playing, on their brand-new $250 million investment

btw I wasn't actively posting on Soxtalk for much of the winter cuz of connectivity issues and general life interference so this might not be accurate to this board, but the majority of people who are still aggressively defending Rose mostly fall into 2 categories: #1 being casual/bandwagon Bulls fans who haven't really followed the Rose saga closely if at all, and maybe just watched the #TheReturn series, and #2 being out-of-towners and non-Bulls fans who see Rose as a top 5 player who needs help, but aren't informed about day-to-day Bulls news.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 4, 2013 -> 10:12 AM) Call it conspiracy paranoia, but I believe Rose sitting out is financially motivated. I believe someone has insurance on his contract. We all know how stingy the Bulls are with their money. Now that they are in luxury tax territory and probably not going to get a windfall of a long postseason run, getting some cash for DRose's contract seems like some motivation. And I also wouldn't be surprised if Adidas has some sort of insurance as well. I don't think that sounds that crazy, but it's not a decision the org. proactively made. They wanted Rose to play, they weren't outright trying to force him, but they did really want him to and they leaked that medical clearance report which pissed him and his "camp" off.

I am still a huge Rose fan, and if they announced tonight he was in the starting lineup against Brooklyn I will delete everything I ever said criticizing and doubting him and act like a b****

QUOTE (Jake @ Apr 4, 2013 -> 09:42 AM) Unfortunately, the Bulls HAD to let him decide. Who would want to play here if the word around the league is that we made the franchise's second best player ever (get off me, Scottie lovers ) come back too soon from injury? I think the organization is just as confused by him as we are.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 4, 2013 -> 09:38 AM) All I know is Derrick Rose makes a f***ton of money in salary and endorsements because he plays basketball. We're almost a full year into his new monster deal, and the doctors cleared him to play forever ago. The Bulls f***ed this situation up by letting him determine when he plays. I'm sure they just never expected Reggie to project his fears onto Rose and for Rose, competitor that he always seemed, to not want to be on the court ASAP. The sportswriters are defending him and they keep saying stuff like "if you think it's not killing him to not be out there you don't know D-Rose." Well... what I've actually learned from this is they are right, I don't "know" him at all. I have no idea how he thinks. I do know that he's very competitive and dedicated to the game, but there's other things about his personality that I'm learning that I didn't know before. We all used to have this image of him as an infallible figure, but that's probably gone forever. But anyway, fact is if it was really killing him, he'd be out there.

Being upset over the construction of the roster is about one of the least acceptable reasons to not want to play (assuming that is true - which I don't think it is, but I do wonder, and he's really left that door wide open for people to speculate on)