Liberals here want to blame conservatives for Ariz shooting?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

We could start by removing terms like Moonbat, Wingnut, Obamorons, Nazi, Tea-Baggers, and other derogatory names from the conversation.

Pretty sure that name calling doesn't lead to the free expression of ideas and open dialogue between people.

so you want to ban certain terms that you don't like in order to foster free expression?....OK...set up the parameters...what is acceptable and what is not?

need to ban "insinuations" of such as well because there is a lot of that going on and it is equally distasteful and somewhat gutless....if you tend to freak out over things like words

we should start a list.....

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

so you want to ban certain terms that you don't like in order to foster free expression?....OK...set up the parameters...what is acceptable and what is not?

need to ban "insinuations" of such as well because there is a lot of that going on and it is equally distasteful and somewhat gutless....if you tend to freak out over things like words

we should start a list.....

I was thinking more along the lines of people actually doing it ON THEIR OWN.....maybe taking the high road and showing a little class in the process.

How does anybody think they can sway somebody to their way of thinking if they continuously insult people......

[scottw]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I was thinking more along the lines of people actually doing it ON THEIR OWN.....maybe taking the high road and showing a little class in the process.

How does anybody think they can sway somebody to their way of thinking if they continuously insult people......

I'm offended by those that refer to"class"...the insinuation is that someone deemed to be without class is a lesser human and probably on a lower rung on the social ladder which is highly offensive particularly to minorities...

oh, and it's sooooo 70's

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

I'm offended by those that refer to"class"...the insinuation is that someone deemed to be without class is a lesser human and probably on a lower rung on the social ladder which is highly offensive particularly to minorities...

oh, and it's sooooo 70's

How about we change it to "Common Decency".......does that work.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

How about we change it to "Common Decency".......does that work.

I'm good with that....


however, I just spent a weekend watching the mainstream media, leftwing pundints, democrat politicians and a few here in a coordinated way trying to affix the blame for the massacre in Arizona to people that they disagree with politically...an all time low in my opinion......I'm all for common decency and fairness but these people are not honest brokers in any discussion, I would never suggest that they be limited in what they say nor would I suggest anyone here be limited or be told to self limit as long as they stay within the constraints that the moderators deem acceptable and appropriate, I find the blatant dishonesty far more despicable than some random colorful name calling.....the names can be amusing...the lies are not...

btw...I will be the first to pledge to self-police my rhetoric/comments with respect to common decency if it will result in a happier SB political nation

[Chesapeake Bill]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I was thinking more along the lines of people actually doing it ON THEIR OWN.....maybe taking the high road and showing a little class in the process.

How does anybody think they can sway somebody to their way of thinking if they continuously insult people......

The basic problem is that you use the term "taking the high road." Unfortunately, many confuse this with taking the moral high ground...thus defending their stance from those who disagree. Getting this group to the table is like negotiating the Panmunjom ceasefire...

The preceding discussion thread about funding pensions has merit (much like the need to convert today's youth from social security to a form of 401K). However, how do we move off center? Do we pick a date, after which the new program is implemented? I say this because the existing groups have contracts that should be kept (lest the tables turn and everyone loses at any point). How to implement and maintain fairness would be a more appreciable diatribe IMHO.

Unfortunately, we have grown accustomed to the CNN "shock and awe" style of discussion.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill

The preceding discussion thread about funding pensions has merit (much like the need to convert today's youth from social security to a form of 401K). However, how do we move off center? Do we pick a date, after which the new program is implemented? I say this because the existing groups have contracts that should be kept (lest the tables turn and everyone loses at any point). How to implement and maintain fairness would be a more appreciable diatribe IMHO.

Unfortunately, we have grown accustomed to the CNN "shock and awe" style of discussion.

Easy in my opinion. You do what the private sector did. WShen those contracts come up, you modify them and say "on such-and-such a date, contributions to your pension will cease. You will be vested in any contributions already made to your pension, and therefore you have earned a portion of the future benefit. Henceforth, future contributions will be made to a 401(k), and like everyone else, you need to live on whatever you can accumulate"

Try suggesting that to a teacher or a cop (or better yet, to a union rep), and watch the reaction you get. No one will say "hey, I recognize the economic realities of today, so let's discuss this". What they'll say is that, for example, you don't care about kids getting quality education, or that you are anti-cop. There is no talking to these people, not till states file bankruptcy.

[mosholu]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Easy in my opinion. You do what the private sector did. WShen those contracts come up, you modify them and say "on such-and-such a date, contributions to your pension will cease. You will be vested in any contributions already made to your pension, and therefore you have earned a portion of the future benefit. Henceforth, future contributions will be made to a 401(k), and like everyone else, you need to live on whatever you can accumulate"

Try suggesting that to a teacher or a cop (or better yet, to a union rep), and watch the reaction you get. No one will say "hey, I recognize the economic realities of today, so let's discuss this". What they'll say is that, for example, you don't care about kids getting quality education, or that you are anti-cop. There is no talking to these people, not till states file bankruptcy.

I do not think it is as easy as that for the following reason: Isn't the main problem with the pension systems for the states is that they have been underfunded. Are you suggesting that the pension plans would lose any amounts that have not been funded yet. If so, I think that would be difficult from a political and legal stand point. It would be a hard argument to make that people should take dramatic cuts to their benefits accrued because prior governments ignored their pension obligations. As far as turning them into 401(k) plans I think it results in just another large subsidy to the financial sector. Maybe they can be self directed but to be honest I really do not know how much flexibility there is.

[scottw]

you guys are in the wrong thread...the pension thread is over there....

we are discussing the "sewers of political polarity"

weird how topics in the Political Threads always descend into partisan political discussions...one of life's mysteries I suppose...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by mosholu

I do not think it is as easy as that for the following reason: Isn't the main problem with the pension systems for the states is that they have been underfunded. Are you suggesting that the pension plans would lose any amounts that have not been funded yet. If so, I think that would be difficult from a political and legal stand point. It would be a hard argument to make that people should take dramatic cuts to their benefits accrued because prior governments ignored their pension obligations. As far as turning them into 401(k) plans I think it results in just another large subsidy to the financial sector. Maybe they can be self directed but to be honest I really do not know how much flexibility there is.

What I would suggest is, teachers have earned whatever portion of their pension that they have paid into. Then, after som edate, they no longer "earn" more of their pension, but fund into a 401(k). That's what the private sector did. As for subsidizng the private sector...to me, that's a better alternative than doubling property taxes, which is what you'd have to do to adequately fund those insane pensions.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by mosholu

I do not think it is as easy as that for the following reason: Isn't the main problem with the pension systems for the states is that they have been underfunded. Are you suggesting that the pension plans would lose any amounts that have not been funded yet. If so, I think that would be difficult from a political and legal stand point. It would be a hard argument to make that people should take dramatic cuts to their benefits accrued because prior governments ignored their pension obligations. As far as turning them into 401(k) plans I think it results in just another large subsidy to the financial sector. Maybe they can be self directed but to be honest I really do not know how much flexibility there is.

In the private sector, if the pension plan is underfunded or not fully funded and the company goes under, you loose your pension. (Enron and Polaroid just to name a few). Believe me, I wish it was affordable for everyone to have a pension but in the end, a pension is a "major perk" and it does not seem to be sustainable from a government level. If the yearly salaries were not so high, I could see it being more affordable but you can’t have it both ways. Some public employees are making a hell of a lot of many especially compared to 20 years ago and they still expect a pension which is rated off of that high salary. It just isn't sustainable in this world. The government isn't selling something to make a large profit like a private company and it just isn’t sustainable.