When will it be over....=(

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Mr. Fun: Saying that there are good conservative ideas out there doesn't even fall into the same planetary orbit of what you just said I said...so the short answer would be no.

-=Vel=-

Ok, so the wealthy, elite conservatives have twisted and distorted what you believe to be good conservative principles.





agan, that's nice

[JohnT]

Actually Vel, we had a couple of threads about this

United Airlines

General Motors

I urge you to check them out as a number of issues that you are concerned about are dealt with in those threads.

The problem with the nations pensions goes far beyond this, or any single one, administration and strikes at the very nature of the defined-benefit pension system as it developed over the past 100-odd years.

[JohnT]

You might also be interested in reading this discussion about the relative benefits/liabilities of Defined benefit vs. Defined contribution pensions at the SDMB.

[Velociryx]

Mr. Fun, something tells me we aren't exactly in the same club...

John T...read them...don't get to spend a lot of time posting anymore, but I read the stuff here and elsewhere when I'm able.

True, these problems are hardly confined to JUST the current administration, but their timing, when coupled with the agenda OF the current administration makes for dark clouds indeed....

-=Vel=-

[Dr Strangelove]

We need to seize the hourglass of government and set it right side up.

[Agathon]

See Vel, the lefties were correct. Viva la revolucion!!

[Patroklos]

The Pension plan thing is by no means the current adminitstrations fault.

As for the courts, there were two roads to go down and neither one ended with workers getting their pensions. You can be pissed off at the courts or the executives, but don't forget the Union who not only knew where things were headed, but did their best to make the problem worse.

[aneeshm]

Vel , I'm a capitalist , and I have to say this : .

I see government bias towards or against anything as immoral - "anything" here includes workers , unions , corporations , communities , races , sexual orientations , genders , religions , sects , and so on .

In the case of United , the corporation was clearly at fault , though it is unfortunate that not much could be done about it . The pension plans , however , should not have been summarily cut without any compensation , as they were in this case . **** happens , but that doesn't mean you have to try to make it worse , as they did .

Here , the government did not carry out its legitimate function - to enforce the contract the company had with the workers . Thus , this is a bias towards the corporation ( or against the workers ) , and I condemn it as such .

However , I doubt Bush has anything much to do with this decision . As you said , he's too dumb ( relatively) , and can be controlled too easily . And this case has been going on since 1989 , IIRC , so this has been brewing for a long time - Bush just happened to be in the room when then **** hit the fan .

And in this case , again , the Unions make the thing much worse . So you can't really attach blame to any one entity here .

About the terrorism part :

The US seems to be paying the price for years of interventionist policies everywhere . I'm not saying that the policies weren't necessary , just that their inevitable result would is ( and has to be ) this . You seem to have no idea how people in countries affected by terrorism lived till now , didn't you ?

Imagine that since the day you were born , since the day you could read , every day , each day , whenever you pick up the paper , some article is always about terrorism on your soil , and how many people have been killed in attack X . And that it was found that the money for this came from US coffers . Imagine being in a constant state of semi-war with a neighbour who has the support of the USA . Imagine being surrounded by three hostile powers ( Pakistan , China , and now , apparently , Bangladesh ) . Imagine having sanctions imposed on you by the USA when you try to develop nuclear weapons to defend yourself against nuclear neighbours ( or when you try to do something the US doesn't want ) . Now imagine that , against all odds , you make it out of a socialist quagmire and try to compete in a free market – and promptly have the USA impose protectionist policies about whichever area you are good at ( agriculture , IT grunt work , textiles , etc. ) . This behaviour is uncapitalist , and the double standards are what get to most people .

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by JohnT
You might also be interested in reading this discussion about the relative benefits/liabilities of Defined benefit vs. Defined contribution pensions at the SDMB.

Just read that. Interesting, if bizarre.

I don't know if it's a different scene in the US, but in the UK as far as employees are concerned defined denefit schemes are always considered far better. On average, a benefit to the employee of around £5000, in fact.

I work with both types of pension, and I've only ever seen a handful of defined contribution plans that produced returns equal or better to DB. They were plans held by professional city-type investors who switched funds on a monthly basis. If you aren't prepared to give that level of attention to your pension funds (or are just unlucky) DC will never be as good as DB.

[Velociryx]

Feeling better this morning...was just down in the dumps about all the ****e that's hitting the fan all at once.

I know that SOME of the stuff we're seeing now (like the pension case) has been brewing up for a long time, but its resolution now, coupled with the administration's current stance....well...they just go hand in hand. These types of resolutions play PERFECTLY with the new bankruptcy laws, cuts to various benefits for the rank and file (again, no mention of paycuts for the congress, or doing away with THEIR pension plans)....it numbs the mind how blatant and obvious these folks are, and the Jesus Freaks and Uber Conservatives (and let's face it, the very wealthy, who reap enormous benefits from the recent moves) LOVE it....even the poorer folks in the abovementioned categories who are getting SCREWED by the admin's policies are positively screaming for more.

I don't get it.

The nation revealing its masochistic tendencies, perhaps?

And, when the dust settles, the conservatives have nowhere to hide. Libs aren't in power....at all, which means that there's no one else to blame. It should be interesting to see what the feeding frenzy looks like when the fit starts hitting the shan.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

aneeshm, Quite right....the USofA has been almost entirely sheltered from this sort of thing (the terrorist acts) for as long as I've been alive, anyway, and to be suddenly thrust into it is....disorienting to say the least.

Not that we *shouldn't* be in the thick of it, since this is where the rest of the world is, but it IS quite a change, and one that takes some getting used to.

And believe me....If there was ANYTHING I could do to curb the US's longstanding appetite for meddling in the affairs of others, I'd pull that plug in a heartbeat. As if we don't have enough troubles here at home! Sheesh....

-=Vel=-

[Sandman]

This behaviour is uncapitalist

Nice idealistic definition of capitalism. It's like those commies who say that brutal dictatorships and stagnant bureaucracies aren't really communist.

[aneeshm]

I'd defy you to prove to me how protectionism is capitalist .

[DeathByTheSword]

protectionism is used to boost own enocomy in a short to medium time span hence it is capitalistic.

the problem is that with protectionism on a global scale and over a long time span it doesnt help your own market because all the foreign markets could never grown because of your own policies and thus your export market sees its income drop this will have a direct effect upon your domestic market which also drops hence not capitalic...

if you look it the other way around...let other markets sell stuff own your own will make them richer and then in turn will also buy more stuff from you boosting your economy

this is atleast the general economy i learned when talking about the positive and negative effects of protectionism

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by aneeshm
I'd defy you to prove to me how protectionism is capitalist .

Capitalism, at its core, isn't about free market. It's about the role of the owner of capital (aka "capitalist" or "investor"). Nazi Germany was a capitalist country, where the investors made much profit for themselves off their businesses, yet it also was extremely protectionist. The 19th century was the time where capitalism was the most unfettered, and yet plenty of countries had protectionist policies (even the UK at some point, despite being the most devout defender of free trade)

You add "free market" in the definition of capitalism, which is a common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.