patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,234,312 comments by 14,751 users - askmeaboutthesaltporkcure, komputodo, Patrick online now
Exactly when did "liberals" decide to stop being tolerant?
invite response
2012 Nov 25, 7:21am 34,322 views 76 comments
« First « Previous Comments 68 - 76 of 76 Search these comments
Oh, and apocolypsefuck, have I mentioned lately that I think I love you?
gay rights are not bullshit to gay people, and restricting the legal availability of abortion services is not bullshit to pro-life people.
I think they are minor topics though that should consume far less media attention and I believe they are used to divide and conquer and to get people watch TV and commercials - after all nobody would want to watch the sad and boring state of the US debt clock although it is a million times more important and relevant. Gays have all the rights that straights have except for the right to get married, which is not a civil right but a fight for inclusion into a government-endorsed lifestyle. IMO marriage brings more governmental headaches/intrusions into your life (not to talk about divorce lawyer sharks and realtors) than it has advantages. Ideally government should get out of marriage business completely and let either states handle it (still some form of government) or just churches and written contracts between the two parties define the terms. Abortion should also be handled on the state level so you can always go to where it's legal if necessary, but it certainly should not be sponsored with taxpayer money. All in all fringe topics that should not consume so much attention.
I'm not sure I agree. Social progressiveness has always been the core of the American experience and it's the way the country has dealt with issues similar to these in the past that have helped to define America as a nation. These are not rri ge issues, they are the latest front in a decades long battle to drag ourselves into a better and more full filling & productive life for a people.
If there is one thing that defines "Americanism" I hope that would be it.
Who says librhuls are intolerant?
So long as you live in a good neighborhood with good schools and have like mad education yo, you're aye okay in my book. You dumb fucking redneck, christian, republican tea baggers
marcus
2012 Nov 27, 11:14am
If people come to the realization that this crap was actually happening, say goodbye to the Republican party as a going concern.
Why ? Most republicans are fine with this. They knowingly lie through their teeth that it's about voter fraud. But really it shows a lack of integrity, or the values that this country is based on, they know what it's about and they are okay with it.
There's no reason why politics have to be so emotionally charged and bring out the worst in the debaters.
Hmmmm. You may be right. Ooops.
marcus
2012 Nov 27, 11:25am
unfunded pension liabilities of government unions is a policy mistake
The mistake is not funding what they agreed to ( was it liberal politicians or was it the conservatives not letting them fund what they agreed to ? I don't know).
It wasn't the unions. Their job is to push for better benefits. If the politicians agree and then don't fund what they agreed to, that isn't the unions fault.
Yes, yes, I know. I have a bias. Someone really needs to make an ad hominem attack and put me in my place.
Excellent thread by the way.
I don't think today's "liberals" understand the problems and available solutions all that well, either. They seem to be center-right bumblefucks to me most of the time, TBH.
I agree with this. It's almost like there is some kind of conspiracy to shift the whole thing to the right. "oh you want to go with the guy to the left ? That's cool, we've worked it out so that he's right about where we want it."
It's like a negotiation, where we are at an extreme disadvantage.
unfunded pension liabilities of government unions is a policy mistake
The mistake is not funding what they agreed to ( was it liberal politicians or was it the conservatives not letting them fund what they agreed to ? I don't know).
It wasn't the unions. Their job is to push for better benefits. If the politicians agree and then don't fund what they agreed to, that isn't the unions fault.
Pension benefits should not be negotiable and just be regular 401Ks tracking whatever assets they are invested in with all the risks and benefits. Any "guaranteed" returns must come out of the active teachers paychecks to guarantee funding for the retirees and it must be frequently adjusted.
marcus
2012 Nov 27, 11:38am
Pension benefits should not be negotiable and just be regular 401Ks tracking whatever assets they are invested in with all the risks and benefits.
Okay. Then raise the salaries. It's all the same really. Lower pay with a defined benefit pension, or higher pay with a 401k (403b whatever). I think I might agree that since the politicians can't be trusted, and they can't renig on salary as easily as they can pension, that higher pay without the defined benefit is a better choice.
Bellingham Bill
2012 Nov 27, 12:02pm
The mistake is not funding what they agreed to ( was it liberal politicians or was it the conservatives not letting them fund what they agreed to ? I don't know).
From what I gather, the late 1990s goodtimes allowed Sacramento politicians -- both parties -- to throw a lot of pension promises at the various unions.
But for pensions to pay out as promised their multihundred billion dollar funds need to be earning 7%+, not the 2% of last year.
To put this in perspective, that missing yield is on the order of $30B, and that has to come out of either government payrolls, higher taxes on taxpayers, or the employees via higher pension contributions, since contract law is apparently on the side of the employees who are unconditionally owed what they were promised.
$30B is $800 from every man, woman, and child in the state.
“We had no idea what we were doing,†said Tony Oliveira, who as a supervisor in Kings County, in central California, voted to increase employees’ benefits, and now is on the board of the state’s enormous pension fund. “This was probably the worst public policy decision in the state’s history. But everyone kept saying there was plenty of money. And no one wants to be responsible if all the cops quit to get paid more in the next town.â€
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/business/22union.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
The funds are still banking on 7%+ returns. Insanity when the TNX has been under 2% nearly all year.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=%5ETNX
flim-flam is the order of the day here. The reality of the true situation is pretty horrible, unless you're a state retiree, then you're styling:
Mr. Seeling, for his part, is now enjoying retirement with a pension of about $78,000 a year.
“I can live on it,†he said. “I wish I had more. But it’s enough. I don’t think anyone needs that much more for a comfortable life.â€
« First « Previous Comments 68 - 76 of 76 Search these comments
As I remember, one of the core tennents of the "liberal" belief system was tolerance of others...in esence, an emphasis on the ideas:
-that government ought not dictate what goes on between consenting adults behind closed doors.
-freedom of press.
-very strong support of free speech.
Basically an overall belief that as long as someone is doing or saying something that doesn't hurt anyone else, they ought to be able to do it and society and government should protect that person and their right to express themselves.
But that has diminished a great deal. The hatred by some of the left wing posters on this site is quite palpable. There is a STRONG intolerance of the ideas of others.
I'd argue that the concepts I listed above have been taken over by mostly libertarian leaning folks out there. That there are very few true liberals anymore, and that the entire liberal concept has been forcefully outdated, leaving the political spectrum worse for the wear.
IMO it really won't be too long before we see drastic changes in what is considered freedom of speech. I'm already seeing situations where people are asking to move with like minded people. Where if you don't agree with the lifestyle someone else lives, your immediately branded as a person of "hate". Where you are considered an inappropriate parent if you fail to teach your children an appropriately "tolerant" point of view as part of their upbringing.