<p>I read a lot of Victor Davis Hanson as I have a very great interest in Classics. It’s really a shame that someone with such excellent credentials, who has written so extensively on so many interesting topics would be dismissed as a hack for the simple reason of disagreement. Also, his personal stories of life as part of a generations-long farming family in California are fascinating because much of that life isn’t familiar to many of us from elsewhere. I guess disagreement without demonization isn’t possible in some quarters. Maybe it’s because I’m the odd woman out in my area, but I prefer to find something worthwhile in the experience and knowledge of people with whom I disagree on some matters. Heck, if I discounted every person with whom I disagree on something, there would be nobody left to talk to.</p>
<p>Nothing wrong with defined benefit pensions, rich retirement packages. But they have to be FUNDED. Government’s idea of funding is for current income to pay for past obigations as they come due along with current expenses. As far as I am concerned, every single one of these packages should have been privately sold in a lump sum instead of self financing because thes pols just don’t know their math, and don’t care. What do they care about what someone will have to pay in 20 years? The IRS did not allow unfunded liabilites to not be addressed in qualified pension plans. They HAD to be amortized over 30 years at most, and paid annually if the plan were to stay qualified. Public plans, collective bargaining plans and the biggest baddest of them all, Social Security are not required to operate under those rules. So when it comes time to pay–no money. Very easy to offer early retirement incentives. Those may solve an immediate salary crunch in the budget, but then you gotta pay up when people take you up on them and people are living a lot longer these days.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And one of the reason they were under-funded in private sector is because it was too expensive to do so (another reason is the problem with math of people who run them), this is why the are not being offered in private sector anymore. So, I say there is a lot of wrong with the defined pension plans, otherwise they would still be in offered in private sector.</p>
<p>I read VDH. The man demonizes groups of people. I think people that demozize groups of people are …
The guy is supposed to be an expert and has written extensively about
Iraq. The guy was flat out wrong. I am not too thrilled with Thomas Friedman either, but VDH is worse. VDH plays with people’s fears and uses those fears to manipulate people’s thinking…if you can call it thinking.</p>
<p>I don’t think living in a liberal area, and bragging about liking to have contradictory views compared to the people surrounding me is a virtue. People that automatically take contradictory views of liberals, because they think liberals aren’t thinking properly, aren’t thinking either. They are just on the other side of the same coin.</p>
<p>When I have a view, and the other side embraces it, I don’t change my view. I don’t base my views based on what my political party wants or so my political party can win. </p>
<p>I prefer to be correct rather than contradictory.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Correct” is in the eyes of the beholder…</p>
<p>I prefer to be grateful and respectful, rather than to think that I am correct when sometimes I am and sometimes I’m not. I also really, really enjoy hearing other people’s experiences because I am aware that I live in a region that is very specific. On a purely personal level, being a pro-gay marriage activist for more than 20 years, as well as working with illegal immigrants for the same, makes me opposed to everyone, not just liberals. Which is fine with me because it’s all about doing what you believe in and I believe in marriage equality and literacy and am willing to put my money, time and person where my mouth is.</p>
<p>But to each his (or her) own.</p>
<p>I read your post about contradictory views. Didn’t think much of it.</p>
<p>@zooser,
I sometimes wonder why the gov’t is even involved in registering “marriage” anyway, as opposed to registering “civil unions” for economic partnerships, gay or straight…</p>
<p>If that was directed at me, as I said, to each his (or her) own.</p>
<p>GMTplus, I think gay couples should get exactly whatever everyone else is getting, although I do think religious organizations should have the right to refuse anyone. For example, in my church, you have to take a class and if the pastor doesn’t think you have the right mindset, he or she can refuse to perform the ceremony. I support that.</p>
<p>Personally, I think marriage is a very important conservative issue and we should be encouraging as many families as possible to take that step, certainly not making it difficult for anyone. However, I am a hypocrite. I firmly believe marriage should only be for TWO people and that they must be over age 18.</p>
<p>It was your post zoosermom.</p>
<p>To each his own…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is the hallmark of the truly intelligent to be able to hold two contradictory views in one’s mind at the same time and to arrive at a wholly new idea. Or, as einstein said, the problems of the world will not be solved at the level of thinking that created them.</p>
<p>How about pedophiles? They feel “discriminated against” by current laws, they feel that they make their “partners” happy? Should we keep them on the streets and and make thier unions legal for economic puposes or since the kids are still supported by parents, it is OK to keep them still under parents support? What would be an age for this cut? In some states marriage is legal at 16, correct? How about gay marriage, would it be legal at 16 also or it would be considered illegal relationship becuase minor is involved? Or, it ia legal “civil union” probably wihouth parent’s consent in most cases. Then, would not parents feel that their rights are violated? I am very confused.</p>
<p>
I promise my feelings won’t be hurt if you filter me.</p>
<p>But neither will they be hurt if you snark me. You were right the other day that I was being ridiculously sensitive and I posted an apology. However, that doesn’t make me wrong in my perspective that taxpayers should be treated with respect and gratitude because it’s a very important part of the civic process. You disagreed. That’s quite fine with me.</p>
<p>I disagreed with taxpayers being treated with respect?</p>
<p>I am not going to filter you. I like some of your posts. :)</p>
<p>
My personal feeling is that the marriage age (we still do have marriage in this country) should be 18. I understand there is a level of hypocrisy and inconsistency on my part, but I really don’t think anyone under 18 should be able to get married.</p>
<p>
That was the gist of the argument that you jumped in on, as you are entitled to do. I absolutely believe that Phil Mickelson should be respected and appreciated for the taxes he pays, as should small business owners, everyone. For me (and no one else), I believe the government at every level and fellow citizens should always respect the money earned by someone else. Which doesn’t mean agreement or love, but always a respect for the fact that someone else made that money and that it is first and foremost, the earner’s.</p>
<p>I reread your post on contradictory impulses. I overreacted. Sorry, zoosermom.</p>
<p>Not a problem AT ALL. I really like you dstark and find your posts informative and reality-checking. (Is that a word?) You were completely correct the other day that I was overreacting. Completely correct and reasonable to call me out. I find that a good thing and in my own view, I would say that sometimes being contradictory (which you were to me) is a good thing is setting a person straight.</p>
<p>No. I feel Phil Mickelson and every other taxpayer should be respected for the taxes they pay. Phil Mickelson either doesn’t know his tax rates or misstated his true tax rate. </p>
<p>I have a problem with the 13 percent tax bracket as I said. I said it is a ridiculously high rate. I hope people don’t leave the state. So far, there is no proof that high tax rates affect state’s revenues. It looks like some people leave, but some people come.</p>
<p>We haven’t had these kind of high rates before, so we will see.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Almost impossible to do which is why they are a bad thing. </p>
<p>First off, people in the present take credit for something that they wont be around reap the consequences of success or giant bust up. Can we dig up Ed Witte can get our social security money back? Of course not. Back in the '50’s there were handshakes and backslaps all around for the company VP’s and union leaders who ended a strike with small raises but a glowing defined benefits health care deal. 40 years Bethlehem Steel is ground into bankruptcy but no one who made the original, untenable deal is held to the slightest account. </p>
<p>Secondly, the mathematical premise is impossible- “I’ll pay any amount of cost for an unknown number of beneficiaries for an unknown amount of time.” Ok tell me how much money to put aside?</p>
<p>How long are people going to live. How much will medical inflation be in the next 40 years? What interest rate will the fund get? What will the acceleration in medical cost of the last years of life be? What will be the company’s position in the marketplace and other debt? </p>
<p>Defined benefit is a boondoggle and a dishonest one.</p>