In this thread, deltasigma argued that the “principle of reliance” creates a “moral obligation” that the government must continue Social Security payments to beneficiaries, and I presume he means even if the government’s debt limit is exceeded. If these “moral obligations” are so strong that the government “can’t turn around and say that people have no legitimate expectation of continued benefits” under such a program.
I pointed out that other social programs have been scaled back, like welfare. deltasigma then goes kind of nutso that I’m not understanding what he’s writing, and that an intelligent conversation isn’t possible.
While he’s certainly right on that point, this is the first time I’ve noticed this poster – are there other instances of deltasigma being a general idiot and a fucking pain in the ass?
Sell, the only Delta Sigma (Theta) I know of is a sorority, so maybe ‘he’ is a ‘she’. Other than that, I gots nuffin…never heard of the poster before this.
Actually, this isn’t the first time you’ve run across his idiocy. You got into this quagmire of a thread a couple months ago.
ETA: And yeah, he has a nasty habit of attacking the posters instead of the content when his ego is threatened with the possibility of being wrong. Evidence this thread where he attacks experts in physics for not understanding his poorly phrased/worded OP.
I feel like such a sucker for getting lured in again. :mad:
But since this is the Pit, deltasigma, get your fucking head out of your ass. You’re a half-wit fuckup, and trying to get you to talk on a rational, informed level is as futile as trying to get a dog not to eat his own shit. You think you’re clever by going on the offense as soon as your own words get you in trouble, but you actually come across as a stupid, whiny bitch. Take your law degree, carefully fold it inside your business degree, and blow them both out your ass.
****adieu noun \ə-ˈdyü\ [Middle English by way of Olde Français (from Latino ad+dieu, see dyeu- in Indo-European roots)] : an acknowledgment of peoples’ relief when the speaker leaves.
I recommend the “OMG, Gravity is changing!” thread, which devolved into:
I remember that thread… It would have won an award for Angriest Physics Thread, if we voted on those things. He comes out swinging with the first reply that suggested it was experimental error instead of a changing Universal Constant.
His argument should be pretty simple: social security, unlike those other programs, is supposedly us paying our own money into the system under the understanding that we will get it back when we get old enough. That is fundamentally different from other government programs.
I don’t care enough to figure out whether deltasigma ever said this.
Because Social Security is NOT us just getting back what we pay in. People working today pay in to support today’s retiree’s. When we retire, we will be supported by our children and grandchildren. We only receive if we payed in for at least 10 quarters (2.5 years). it is like a giant pyramid scheme, run by the government, and it depends on population growth to keep th payments in manageable. Problem is, with years of low population growth, and a rapidly aging population, the pyramid starts to look more like a column, and so they need to raise the retirement age…
That’s the sad part. The ignorant old people who are bad at math (and mostly Tea Party members) who think they actually PAID for Social Security and Medicare and HOW DARE the government cut it (conveniently blind of the fact that it’s their own party that wants to slash it to the bone), because WE PAID FOR THAT!!!
Well no, your tiny medicare tax payments aren’t paying for the thousands you’re collecting on it when you’re old. It’s like any other insurance program - your expenses are being heavily subsidized by those who are nowhere near collecting and may not ever collect. Likewise, there’s no chance in hell that your lifetime of paying Social Security taxes ever comes close to the amount you will end up collecting.
