patrick.net

YesYNot says

That was an of aspect of Trump's language. 'what? Children died? No one knew that. We've got to do something!'

That was an aspect of Haley AND Hillary's language.

And the latter went right to the invade-invade narrative, "We gotta bring in ALL the Syrian Refugees and the KIDS!!!"

Rew says

No one thinks that our military action is free from killing innocent life. It is however better than most militaries in the world by a long shot.

Of course! When you are bombing cities in support of a siege, kids definitely die and there's no way to avoid it. However the Media did not mention this with Mosul, but hammered it home with repeated gruesome pictures and constant reminders; furthermore they repeated calls from those who demanded a cease-fire against the Jihadis because of it with Aleppo. Even though the opponent is the same!

What we should be is more savvy and cynical when the media pumps one siege, while blasting (no pun intended) another.

PS Notice Swedish (and German, and Marseilles) Truck Attack pictures were too gruesome for most Media; but pictures of both real and staged casualties, including children, in Syria "Has to be seen, the truth may be harsh but we must know it" seems to be the operating principle.

Maybe the Media should have ONE policy for ALL kinds of violence.

It all depends on what you are trying to get your population to do.

- support aggression against a foreign power

- panic, be fearful, and attack your own population and way of life

You would help weaponize terrorism to a further degree. Though I agree with the general principal, we just aren't smart enough to handle some things as they are occurring to us.

Wait! Who is that that I see in the crowd!?

Last Week:

"Trump supporters are all cult-like, no matter how much he shifts gears, they follow him Blindly."

This Week:

"Trump supporters are criticizing Trump... It's the end!!! Haw Haw!!!"*

*Nevermind that for the first time since he arrived in office, the Establishment I voted for is saying nice things about him!

Rew says

You would help weaponize terrorism to a further degree. Though I agree with the general principal, we just aren't smart enough to handle some things as they are occurring to us.

And you're weaponizing invade-invite. YOU just aren't smart enough to get hip to the scam, or you support the scam.

Ah, the Eurocrat opinion. "we're" = "the hoi polloi scum who don't understand how largely unemployed, hostile populations enrich the nation by filling up rentals that would slowly go increasingly vacant as our population becomes more elderly and dies off. What's a few run-over babies for those without limos, ruined schools, and endemic crime and terror if my units keep getting rented. My kids don't go to public school anyway."

I'm certainly not trusting Pointy-Haired Bosses and Trust Fund Babies with Journalism Degrees from Georgetown to make those decisions for me.

Not that it matters, they'll lucky to have jobs and besides the real pics are a click away. You no longer have to subscribe to a newsletter at $50/year to get non-Wall Street alternative opinions.

That's why the Legacy Media is at war with You Tube and what they called "Fake News" before the term was flipped back on them.

Have you seen the Demographics? In 10 years Television viewers and Newspaper Subscribers will be largely in nursing homes.

The internet is "Disrupting" the Middlemen Technocrats who control and reframe information to steer the story "in the right direction" for the Leadership

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

And you're weaponizing invade-invite.

Have we "invaded" Syria now? That's something I won't support.
I'll join Pepe and the Alt-right in protest against that, if that happens.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

I'm certainly not trusting Pointy-Haired Bosses and Trust Fund Babies with Journalism Degrees from Georgetown to make those decisions for me.

Yet we appear as a nation to allow them to run the entire country from the Oval office. Too bad they aren't actually as smart as the media. Their messaging absolutely sucks.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

The internet is "Disrupting" the Middlemen Technocrats

It's very true. I'm getting all my news off the net, but it's pretty big mix of mainstream and alternate sources. Mainstream sources aren't dying by any stretch. They are moving over, and figuring out how to do it.

Many so called alternate sources, are merely just opinion on top of actual reporting. It's newsutainment ... not news at all.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Have you seen the Demographics? In 10 years Television viewers and Newspaper Subscribers will be largely in nursing homes.

Fox viewers are there now. One foot in the grave.

Rew says

Fox viewers are there now. One foot in the grave.

From BBC1 to CNN, they aren't much further behind. While everybody hypes Fox News' decrepit average age, few report that CNN is a youthful 61 in comparison:

Through Dec. 15 (which was the day of the last GOP debate), CNN’s median age was 61 years old for total day, and 59 years old for prime time (Monday-Sunday). MSNBC’s audience is two years older, at 63 (for both total day and prime time), while FNC’s is 67 for total day and 68 in prime time. For both MSNBC and FNC that’s the oldest level on record in both dayparts.

Ok, so the difference in Fox is that the average age viewer is older by almost 10 full years and the outlet is plagued with sex scandals. Got it.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

This Week:

"Trump supporters are criticizing Trump... It's the end!!! Haw Haw!!!"*

*Nevermind that for the first time since he arrived in office, the Establishment I voted for is saying nice things about him!

Do you not understand that "the establishment" is loving it? I'm laughing my ass off. Keep going Trump!

The score so far for Trump is:

FAIL : immigration, travel ban
FAIL : healthcare/repeal Obamacare
FAIL : floated budget proposal
FAIL : immigration, travel ban v2
WIN : acting-like a Neo-Con on foreign policy

Anti-establishment: -4
Establishment: +1

Next up: the wall and more Russian surprises. I can't wait!

Rew says

Ok, so the difference in Fox is that the average age viewer is older by almost 10 full years and the outlet is plagued with sex scandals. Got it.

Don't be obtuse Rew.

Would anybody like to own a brand where the average age is over 60?

People carry on like Fox is full of old farts, but CNN and MSNBC are watched by hip young peeps or middle aged ones at best.

45 vs. 65 is a big deal. Or 20 vs. 40. If you've got the 40-somethings, you're getting peeps at their max earning years. If you've got 20, you're gonna probably keep them to their peak earning years. At 60, it's downsizing time. An audience of 61 vs 67 is nothing burger.

All these News Channels' average viewers are old enough to join the AARP.

Not appealing to advertisers. They'd rather sponsor the makeup girls and comedians on Youtube to gain Brand Loyalty for life. 60+ is for Depends, LifeAlert, and Reverse Mortgages

"Some 50% of people is woefully unprepared for a financial emergency, new research finds. "

I know. You would think two insane, effeminate, posturing psychos would at least give each other professional courtesy.

Those green shoots should be trees by now.

If you are a RetiredFuck on Social Security, you are living from entitlement to entitlement.

Obligatory:

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Amazing how the First Responders have gas masks handy, but not gloves

You are expecting folks in that war torn hellhole to be perfectly equipped, and therefore not being so means fraud. Crossing the tin foil hat red line?

Ironman says

The California Policy Center (CPC) has just updated it's annual study on pension contributions required from local California municipalities and, to our complete 'shock', the conclusions are brutal for Cali taxpayers. Among other things, the study found that California taxpayers will be forced to double their contributions to CalPERS over just the next 5 years alone from $5.3 billion in 2017/2018 tax year to $9.8 billion in 2022/2023.

Another reason not to live in this fucking state. The greedy politicians, unions and state employees are bleeding us to death.
They just increased the gas and car tax to fix the roads. I told you it was just for the pensions.

Why the fuck does anyone who is a taxpayer stay in California?

Booger says

Why the fuck does anyone who is a taxpayer stay in California?

It was for the weather. But my bank balance, what's left of it, is getting hit by a tornado.

Ironman says

Strategist says

I told you it was just for the pensions.

Marcus says "Thank You"!

You are welcome, Marcus. Please use the money wisely, I worked hard for it.

How many Republicans are,& will be, sucking up Taxpayers dollars sitting on their asses?
Getting Republicans off Govt. SOCIALIST programs could save a beau coup of money.
Republican taxpayers will sit on their asses & do nothing.

Strategist says

You are welcome, Marcus. Please use the money wisely, I worked hard for it.

Most teacher pensions in California, including mine, are not part of CalPers.

Amazing isn't it ? You get a democrat governor (Brown) in combination with a democrat state congress and they actually address the unfunded liabilities issue. Republicans would have gleefully allowed it to become so underfunded as to cause the entire pension system ruin. It's called starve the beast.

THe zerohedge piece is propaganda. Taxpayers aren't getting a tax bill increase, it's just that a hgiher percentage of the budget is going to pensions. This is part of a conserted effort to lower the under funding levels. In the case of teachers pensions, funding at all three levels, employee, municipality and state have also been increased. But again, this is not an increaed tax bill. It's dealing with a problem so that it doesn't cause problems in the future.

Note; THere were years when in the late nineties and 2000 when the stock market was so strong that funding of pensions temporarily ceased.

This is not a problem. IT's a solution being implemented. Stupid zerohedge right wingers don't like it when their diabolical starve the beast conspiracies are foiled.

The new forecasts adopted in February increased the funding shortfall. But actuaries still expect CalSTRS to stay on a long path to full funding, thanks to a long-delayed record rate increase in 2014 that will more than double school district pension costs by 2020.

At a media briefing last week, an actuary said one of the factors maintaining a projection of full funding by 2046, despite the larger shortfall from the new forecasts, is new but tightly limited rate-setting power given CalSTRS as part of the funding package three years ago.

“We still think that probability is greater than 50 percent,” said David Lamoureux, CalSTRS deputy chief actuary. A new annual risk report issued last November, before the new forecasts, put the probability of reaching full funding in three decades at 60 percent.

https://calpensions.com/category/calstrs/funding-gap/

Ironman says

Strategist says

Booger says

Why the fuck does anyone who is a taxpayer stay in California?

OC

It was for the weather. But my bank balance, what's left of it, is getting hit by a tornado.

That's why you should have moved over here.

We have propane too!!

Well move over. I'm sick of this rotten state and it's communist politicians.
Can I get water/ocean front for 400K? A third of what the boring view costs in North San Diego? Which is supposed to be a bargain?
I also want a man's cave, where my wife can't get in.

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/03/10/commentary-critique-of-browns-pension-reforms-is-off-base/

’s public pension systems, and they are doing exactly that. Their effects will be measured over the lifetimes of thousands of schoolteachers, firefighters, police officers, bus drivers, trash collectors, librarians and others whose labor provides the public services upon which all Californians rely.Related

marcus says

Strategist says

You are welcome, Marcus. Please use the money wisely, I worked hard for it.

Most teacher pensions in California, including mine, are not part of CalPers.

Marcus, I love education. It's our future. It's the screwed up Unions that keep bad teachers from getting replaced with good ones. I don't mind paying good teachers more, it's the bad ones I have a problem with. They need to be fired.

Strategist says

I don't mind paying good teachers more, it's the bad ones I have a problem with. They need to be fired.

You're misinformed about this. I know of specific examples of bad teachers being forced out. It happens. Also, if a teacher is not good, they are going to find the job far more stressful and unrewarding, which is why a significant percentage of teachers move on to something else on their own in the first five years.

It's complicated, but I believe a certain amount of job security is ultimately a plus for students and the community and not just the teachers. It causes teachers to feel secure in their jobs, and thus it means that it's not easy to destroy their careers on the whim of a bad administrator. A teacher's highest priority should be doing what's right for their students, not fearing what some rogue administrator might do to them without due process.

IT also prevents ageism. Sadly, without union protections, teachers would indeed often be replaced by younger cheaper teachers for simple financial reasons, not becasue the younger teachers are better. This might seem like a plus, but it would be a major inhibitor of great people going in to teaching. Who wants to devote decades to a craft, only to have to worry about being put out to pasture and find a new career in their 50s ? Put differently, the long term job security is an incentive factor for great people to accept the limited financial upside in teaching.

Strategist says

Ironman says

Strategist says

Booger says

Why the fuck does anyone who is a taxpayer stay in California?

OC

It was for the weather. But my bank balance, what's left of it, is getting hit by a tornado.

That's why you should have moved over here.

We have propane too!!

Well move over. I'm sick of this rotten state and it's communist politicians.

Can I get water/ocean front for 400K? A third of what the boring view costs in North San Diego? Which is supposed to be a bargain?

I also want a man's cave, where my wife can't get in.

In NJ? Sure, if you don't mind shelling out 1k+ per month in property taxes. Try Maine

Booger says

Why the fuck does anyone who is a taxpayer stay in California?

For me it's the weather and surf. But it is expensive.

Ironman says

So if they divert a higher percentage of the budget to the pensions, how do the rest of the bills get paid with a smaller remainder of funds?

Last time I checked every state politician has pet projects and there are infinite ways to spend money and nearly infinite places where cuts can be made. This whole problem was caused becasue politician kicked the can down the road for many years. As I mentioned, some did this gleefully in the hopes of destroying the pension system. I know it makes you sad when you hear that this will now be less likely to happen.

Ironman says

Except the data came from the California Policy Center.... oops... Are they propaganda too?

Quote me where in the California policy Center piece it refers to taxpayers (at the level of the taxpayer) being affected, as the zerohedge piece does, even in it's headline.

You don't even realize when you're being manipulated.

Yes, I'm sure some of those 20 counties where pension costs are over 10% may be affected with property tax increases or other tax increases. But that doesn't mean the generalization makes sense as anything more than red meat for right wingers.

marcus says

Most teacher pensions in California, including mine, are not part of CalPers.

You are in Calstrs, and that fund is a shit show too. San Diego is having to lay off hundreds of teachers because they can't afford the increased pension payments.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/education/sd-me-unified-reductions-20170222-story.html

marcus says

Amazing isn't it ? You get a democrat governor (Brown) in combination with a democrat state congress and they actually address the unfunded liabilities issue. Republicans would have gleefully allowed it to become so underfunded as to cause the entire pension system ruin. It's called starve the beast.

It's unfunded alright. Teachers and government workers haven't contributed anywhere near enough of their annual pay or time in the job to allow for the super generous pension benefits they expect to receive.

Hopefully the California State Supreme Court will do the right thing later this year and rule that government pensions can be renegotiated instead of simply raising taxes, shafting bond holders and reducing services.

EVERYONE needs to have skin in the game. That includes you. California already has some of the highest taxes in the country along with the highest poverty rate. Government workers should not be a protected class of workers that are immune to mathematical reality.

socal2 says

EVERYONE needs to have skin in the game. That includes you

The solutions that have been implemented since 2014 did include an increase in my contribution. The other increase were on the employer side, and the state kicks in too.

THankfully Brietbart os on top of this isssue.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/03/18/10-of-taxes-now-go-to-pensions-in-5-cal-counties/

marcus says

socal2 says

EVERYONE needs to have skin in the game. That includes you

The solutions that have been implemented since 2014 did include an increase in my contribution. The other increase were on the employer side, and the state kicks in too.

Dear Marcus,
We, the taxpayer are your employers. Why should we pay more than 3%, which is the norm, pay more towards your pension?
You don't pay more for my retirement, why should I have to pay more for yours?

Yours Truly,
Strategist that gets screwed by all.

So let's say there are hundred of categories in a state budget. Is CIC saying that every time the spending in a category goes up, the taxpayers are getting an increase in their tax bill, and every time a category is decreased they get a tax cut ? IF this were the case, wouldn't it mean that every year you get dozens of tax increases and dozens of tax decreases ?

This is not the way that most intelligent people look at it.

Strategist says

You don't pay more for my retirement, why should I have to pay more for yours?

I don't pay your salary either, and yet you pay towards mine. IT's called a government job, and the pension is simply part of the salary. This was part of the salary offer I was offered when I went to work in this job. Do you not think the number and quality of applicants for a job is affected by the compensation ? And do you not think that the quality of the people ultimately hired is in turn affected by the number of quality candidates that apply ?