It's a let down when you see your own side's failings, and it's when you see the most convoluted counter-arguments of them all on this board, when someone is trying to excuse their side. That's the defense part. For offense we find and post the other guy's failings. People can and sometimes do argue each side, playing "the Devil's advocate". It's twice the work. I do it on the religious threads, you may have noticed.
Why would you want to do that? I tend to be conservative, but at the same time I think many Christian fundamentalists are dangerous, I think drugs should be legalized, and I have many other views that conflict with traditional conservative thinking. I don't understand why any thinking person wouldn't criticize his own side as much as the opposition. I also know several liberals (including one of my closest friends) whom I respect because they're not afraid to speak up and criticize their own.
If it were just a matter of a few people gaming the system there would be an easy fix. The problem is much bigger than that. Though San Jose is used as the primary example in this article, the math is pretty much the same for all the major cities in California. http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/11/michael-lewis-201111 "It shows that the cityâs [San Joseâs] pension costs when he first became interested in the subject were projected to run $73 million a year. This year they would be $245 million: pension and health-care costs of retired workers now are more than half the budget. In three yearsâ time pension costs alone would come to $400 million, though âif you were to adjust for real life expectancy it is more like $650 million.â Legally obliged to meet these costs, the city can respond only by cutting elsewhere. As a result, San Jose, once run by 7,450 city workers, was now being run by 5,400 city workers. The city was back to staffing levels of 1988, when it had a quarter of a million fewer residents⦠By 2014, Reed had calculated, a city of a million people, the 10th-largest city in the United States, would be serviced by 1,600 public workers." In 2015, over 30% of the Los Angeles city revenues will be required just to pay pension/retirement benefits. In 2020, retirement benefits will consume over 50% of the city's total budget. San Francisco is almost as bad. There will either have to be massive layoffs, or bankruptcy to renogotiate pension payouts. The cities will have no other choice. .
See, that's the rub, isn't it If a company pays it's failed CEO to go away, the stock holders can vote against it by selling the stock and not owning it again. Taxpayers have no such option when the government does something stupid like that.
Major props for making this post. I feel the same way, but the problem is just about everyone else on this board is stuck in this worthless two party paradigm. It's why, even after the lost decade of Bush's Presidency, we have the Obama fanboys scraping the bottom of the barrel with their "he's not as bad as Bush".
You are delusional if you honestly believe that you and Ricter are some moral compass. The two of you simply play contrarian to all things perceived to be to the "right" of your political ideology. Once in awhile I've seen you call out both sides of the aisle, but that's a rarity. Ricter, on the other hand, just enjoys being a pain in the ass.
The Golden Parachute folks are my personal heroes!! They get to go to all the best luncheons and dinners, get tickets to the Opera, have slush funds.. They have introvert counterparts in all the fund managers that don't beat the indexes but those @ssholes pass out after thirty minutes of socializing... Union Goons, BFD, anybody can learn to bully!! I practice it all the time just to keep in shape for it... once you start bullying you realize that you better keep in shape for the counterattacks and it drives one to keep one's chops up better than watching Karate Movies ever could!! I guess they both have their pluses and minuses maybe...
Never? Com'on, you know that's not true. I'm critical of the left about as much as you're critical of the right...not very, but critical none the less, and prior to 2008 I was relentless against the left. The hi-jacking of capitalism has turned me though, no doubt about that. It's not so much that I now support the left, I just despise the hypocrisy of the right when it comes to who is REALLY responsible for this mess we're in. I never supported the bailouts or the free pass given out to one and all. All I've ever tried to point out is what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If we can't/won't hold anyone accountable at the top, then no one is accountable at the bottom either. Bail out the banks, we must bailout the auto industry. Free pass for the fraudsters on Wall Street, then the sub-prime home owner get's a free pass too. Obviously none of this is sustainable, but if one is going to pay the penalty, then all must pay the penalty. If one skates, then all skate.
So this is part of your "two wrongs make a right" political ideology? How about two wrongs equals two wrongs?