Save you empty pointless talking points. You've proven time and time again you have zero interest in having an intelligent adult discussion about anything. You're happy just taking shots at the right and worshiping the "do no wrong" left with every post. You couldn't care less about the "common working man" because if you did you would realize the majority of common working men and women in this state will suffer if the broken defined benefits currently in place isn't fixed. You precious white knight democrat leaders refused to address it. When the tab comes due everyone will suffer.

Yeah, but how do you really feel?

 

The reason I generally support the Democratic ticket isn't because the party of FDR and Bill Clinton has the answers. Far from it. It's because Democrats generally do less harm, i.e., the tea party's war on libraries in Kentucky. Or calls from gated-community Republicans to end defined-benefit pension plans.

If a worker is close to retirement or retired we should do all we can to honor the benefits promised. Those early in career , future workers or those far from retirement may need benefit package adjusted. Happens in the private sector everyday. Its called the real world. You can't spend what you don't have.

 

Right, but where do you think that they have been funding pensions from???? The working base. If you take that away, the ponzi scheme of the pension plans collapse.

There are many 'markets'. If you are 6 months from retirement you better not be exposed the stock market. There is the bond market, the cash market and other markets. Not all of them will crash if the Dow tanks. Its called personal financial management. I do not need a magical retirement fund manager to perform responsible financial management of MY money.

 

 

 

 

As I have said 'defined benefits' plans are dinosaurs. They assume the retirement fund managers can perform as well as or better than the general market. History shows that is not the case. Kentucky specifically has over-estimated the annual return for many years. And the contributions have lagged as well. Then every one acts shocked to find the funds are completely underfunded.

 

'Defined contribution' turns the process into a standard operating expense and is much more predictable for the organization sponsoring it. This is why the private sector has gone this route. They pay into the accounts each month and its done. Also, the benefit to the employee is a mobile account since most employee's of private companies are no longer 'lifers'. Companies - big and small - no longer try to be the 'nanny' and trap you with a formula that rewards you for staying 30 years by giving a bunch of credit for those last 5 years of a 30 year career. It encourages those that are ROJ (Retired On the Job) to hang around just for that pop. Its a concept they have moved away from.

 

Government entities are the only ones hanging on to the dinosaur. And they have mis-managed the dinosaur. Regardless of political parties the piper will have to be paid - or in this case written off. The numbers are the numbers and they do not work. Eventually most government entities will have to face this looming crisis. Payouts will likely have to be cut and severe action taken. Converting to defined contribution is not a bad thing in and of itself. If it keeps radical slashes like Detroit from happening people should be happy - not fearful.

The reason private companies have flipped from defined benefits to defined contributions is that it saves them money. Period. As I told the wife last night, the end result is that in 5-10-15-20 years millions of more workers with nothing but a 401k are going to be working right up to age 70.

Or calls from gated-community Republicans to end defined-benefit pension plans.

 

I bet many Detroit city employees or retirees now wish Detroit had dumped defined-benefit plans for Defined Contribution Plans (such as 401k's) back in the 80's. They would be much, much better off now.

Yeah, but how do you really feel?

 

The reason I generally support the Democratic ticket isn't because the party of FDR and Bill Clinton has the answers. Far from it. It's because Democrats generally do less harm, i.e., the tea party's war on libraries in Kentucky. Or calls from gated-community Republicans to end defined-benefit pension plans.

 

How is giving an individual more control over their retirement fund harmful?

As far as the library tax goes, all some are asking for is the law to be enforced. Enforcement of the law as written seems to be a problem with some in government. Not enforcing laws, whether they be a library tax, immigration laws or regulations in relation to Obamacare, seems to be more harmful than an individual being in charge of their own retirement account.

Yeah, but how do you really feel?

 

The reason I generally support the Democratic ticket isn't because the party of FDR and Bill Clinton has the answers. Far from it. It's because Democrats generally do less harm, i.e., the tea party's war on libraries in Kentucky. Or calls from gated-community Republicans to end defined-benefit pension plans.

Wake me up when that actually becomes a true statement. Where have you been the past 5 years?

Yeah, but how do you really feel?

 

The reason I generally support the Democratic ticket isn't because the party of FDR and Bill Clinton has the answers. Far from it. It's because Democrats generally do less harm, i.e., the tea party's war on libraries in Kentucky. Or calls from gated-community Republicans to end defined-benefit pension plans.

 

Democrats have ran Detroit for the past several decades and they have run that city into the ground.

Democrats have ran Detroit for the past several decades and they have run that city into the ground.

i was thinking more along the lines of the Republicans' efforts to roll back birth control, or the $800 billion Bush-Cheney war in Iraq, or the tea party's war on libraries in Kentucky, or the same-faith five on the Supreme Court declaring that Wal-Mart and GE are "people."

i was thinking more along the lines of the Republicans' efforts to roll back birth control, or the $800 billion Bush-Cheney war in Iraq, or the tea party's war on libraries in Kentucky, or the same-faith five on the Supreme Court declaring that Wal-Mart and GE are "people."

 

I personally do not feel it is government's responsibility to pay for people's birth control honestly.

 

The Bush-Cheney War had quite a bit of Dem support in 2001/02 but when fickle public support swung the other way, the Dems changed their pitch. While I admit us going in was probably a mistake since the CIA's intelligence which had been saying or years Saddam had WMD's turned out to be not so intelligent, going in, waging war in a country and then abandoning it would have been somewhat unethical and would have given Al Qaeda incredible propaganda in recruitment and sympathy among other nations in the area. Also, notice how during his election, Obama pounded on how if elected he would pull troops out of Iraq yet once elected, he postponed that withdrawal for quite a while. I just wonder what he saw once elected and now had access to all military intelligence made him change his mind? He was catching quite a bit of flack from supporters for not pulling the troops immediately like he promised.

 

I know in Louisville a group led the charge not raise the library tax, not sure what is going on out in the state. With more and more print going straight to digital, I don't know how much longer traditional libraries will exist. Soon they may be more like public computer labs??

 

The same faith five? So is Sotomayor left out? She is Catholic too? Why does their faith have to even be mentioned?

 

I was told the media's portrayal of the "Corporations are people" case was over simplified and that it went much deeper than that. Being a bean counter rather than an attorney I really can only guess. Maybe Getslow can comment?

The same faith five? So is Sotomayor left out? She is Catholic too? Why does their faith have to even be mentioned?

Lack of diversity is a major concern on the U.S. Supreme Court. The key term is "same," more so than "faith." Every law in the land is now defined through the narrow prism of five old men, all of whom happen to be lifelong Catholics, and all of whom went to either law school A or law school B. Surely, Bert, you can see this as problematic, correct?

The key term is "same," more so than "faith."

 

So again, why did their faith have to be brought into it? Does the fact that the other four are Jewish worry you also? Why not comment on that? But you keep bringing up the fact that the five you disapprove of are Catholic, why does that bother you when one of the four I assume you approve of are Catholic and the others Jewish.

 

Every law in the land is now defined through the narrow prism of five old men, all of whom happen to be lifelong Catholics, and all of whom went to either law school A or law school B. Surely, Bert, you can see this as problematic, correct?

 

Every law in the land? The lion share of laws if contested by the court are settled in Federal District or Appellate Courts. The Supreme Court can only handle a small percentage of those laws and decisions.

 

You do realize along with these five old Catholic men (you seem to point out characteristics of them that should have no bearing on their ability to serve) three of the other four ALSO went to Law School A (Harvard) or B (Yale) and the one who didn't (Ginsburg) started at Harvard before transferring but yet you seem to only find the fault with the five old crusty Catholics (why you focus on their age I have no idea, Ginsburg is the oldest and Breyer is no spring chicken either). Surly you find some lack of logic in your criticism correct?

So again, why did their faith have to be brought into it? Does the fact that the other four are Jewish worry you also? Why not comment on that? But you keep bringing up the fact that the five you disapprove of are Catholic, why does that bother you when one of the four I assume you approve of are Catholic and the others Jewish.

 

 

 

Every law in the land? The lion share of laws if contested by the court are settled in Federal District or Appellate Courts. The Supreme Court can only handle a small percentage of those laws and decisions.

 

You do realize along with these five old Catholic men (you seem to point out characteristics of them that should have no bearing on their ability to serve) three of the other four ALSO went to Law School A (Harvard) or B (Yale) and the one who didn't (Ginsburg) started at Harvard before transferring but yet you seem to only find the fault with the five old crusty Catholics (why you focus on their age I have no idea, Ginsburg is the oldest and Breyer is no spring chicken either). Surly you find some lack of logic in your criticism correct?

For the record, the Supreme Court consists of six people who are Roman Catholic and three people who are Jewish. No Protestants. No Muslims. No members of one of those non-denominational mega-churches with coffee bars. Also, if the high court were truly representative of the American people, I would guess at least three of its members would be atheists.

 

The fact that all of the court's members went to either Yale or Harvard is equally outrageous. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

The reason that faith is important is that in recent years Catholic bishops in the U.S. have become much more active politically, directing priests to read statements from the pulpit right before elections, speaking out against a litany of social issues ranging from gay marriage to birth control. And every year Scalia et al. attend the Red Mass, in which justice and religion are symbolically unified.

For the record, the Supreme Court consists of six people who are Roman Catholic and three people who are Jewish. No Protestants. No Muslims. No members of one of those non-denominational mega-churches with coffee bars. Also, if the high court were truly representative of the American people, I would guess at least three of its members would be atheists.

 

The fact that all of the court's members went to either Yale or Harvard is equally outrageous. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

The reason that faith is important is that in recent years Catholic bishops in the U.S. have become much more active politically, directing priests to read statements from the pulpit right before elections, speaking out against a litany of social issues ranging from gay marriage to birth control. And every year Scalia et al. attend the Red Mass, in which justice and religion are symbolically unified.

 

It's almost hysterical to think you actually believe there should be a demographic test for the supreme court. It should be the most qualified individual.

For the record, the Supreme Court consists of six people who are Roman Catholic and three people who are Jewish. No Protestants. No Muslims. No members of one of those non-denominational mega-churches with coffee bars. Also, if the high court were truly representative of the American people, I would guess at least three of its members would be atheists..

 

In 1960 people were all up in arms about a papist Catholic running for the President of the US. All kinds of BS about how he doesn't represent the American way so on and so forth. And none of those terrible predictions came true. I look at it from a similar point in how the Supreme Court is made up of only Catholics and Jews, I could care less. As long as the justices are people of ethics and justice, what creed they are or lack of does not concern me and I don't know why it concerns others. The same way Kennedy's presidency was not guided by his religion, I don't worry about the Supreme Court Justices doing the same.

 

The fact that all of the court's members went to either Yale or Harvard is equally outrageous. Thanks for pointing that out..

 

Equally outrageous? Going a bit to the extreme? Would it be nice to have a Stanford or Northwestern or elsewhere on the court, I guess. But it is not like Harvard and Yale graduate lawyers of a single mindset. Several of the justices on opposite ends of the spectrum graduated form the same schools. It is not like Harvard only graduates conservatives and Yale liberals. My desire is for our justices to be amongst the greatest legal minds and I cannot think of too many law schools who put out more of those than Harvard or Yale.

 

The reason that faith is important is that in recent years Catholic bishops in the U.S. have become much more active politically, directing priests to read statements from the pulpit right before elections, speaking out against a litany of social issues ranging from gay marriage to birth control. And every year Scalia et al. attend the Red Mass, in which justice and religion are symbolically unified.

 

Do you mean like black churches used to do in the 60's speaking out against segregation rightly so I add? Heaven forbid the faithful not leave their crazy beliefs behind on the way out of church each Sunday morning.

It's almost hysterical to think you actually believe there should be a demographic test for the supreme court. It should be the most qualified individual.

Actually, Bush 43 of all people tried to break the Ivy League elitist trend when he nominated Harriet Miers in '05. But his own party started screaming because she was a grad of SMU and not Yale or Harvard. Bottom line is that the radical right didn't see her as a reliable vote. They saw her as an independent thinker. Can't have any of those in black robes.