I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is,
the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice.
Clint Eastwood
I Don't Need Another Hero
The New Economy Meets the Old Fascists
Facebook Corner
(IPI). Governor Bruce Rauner signed a new law that mandates that an actuarial investigation of each of Illinois’ 5 state-run pension systems be held at least once every 3 years.
What happened to the money the employees put into the funds. State borrowed and never payed it back.
OK, the self-serving pension recipients deciding it's only fair the taxpayers bail out their Ponzi scheme pensions. I think I've probably written a couple of dozen comments on this issue in the past, and you guys still don't get it. There are so many differences from the way the few private-sector employers offering them fhandle pensions--e,g,, usually the investment returns have a more conservative investment earning percentage (roughly half or 4%) which means the employer has to contribute more. Second, unlike the public sector where the basis is off the ending, usually career-high earnings, the private sector basis is more like average lifetime earnings.
The Illinois judicial whores have ignored the fact that the state's deferral to fund pension funds commensurate with unsustainable promises is an unconstitutional shift of burden. We have seen some pension-related budgetary percentages triple or more since 2000; these will likely increase vs. recede--and it will come at the expense of public services and/or taxpayer bailouts. Actuaries have known for decades that the largest generation of Baby Boomers, living longer lives in retirement, made pensions an unsustainable burden.
Those of us who understand math and statistics know that pensions create an undue, unfair incentive in an economy where one may work for a number of employers. So, for example, if you've served in the miliary for 16 years and have to get out--you get nothing. Four more years and half-pay for life. We need a fairer system in a multi-career normalcy of the new economy that vests people in their own retirement, i.e., 401K/403B, instead of making them dependent on an increasingly insolvent government or business for their retirement.
(Cato Institute). "Libertarians are frequently confused with conservatives in mainstream discourse, and proponents of 'fusionism' see libertarians and conservatives as natural political allies. But, are the two philosophies really as similar as many seem to believe?"
Libertarians, in my view, have much more in common with liberals than conservatives, excepting, of course, that "big government" thing...
The OP is delusional. The left wing is truly authoritarian and statist in nature. This country is nearly bankrupt from their snti-economic growth redistributionist and Ponzi scheme entitlements and illegitimate, morally corrupt interventions in domestic and foreign policy. There are right-wing authoritarians/populists, including the anti-immigrants and the law-and-order folks. but don't confuse them with fusionists, libertarian-conservatives. Our conservatism side opposes licentious behavior, socially-experimental policy. We don't necessarily want to micromanage the wrong choices other people make unless it violates the unalienable rights of others.
So-called conservatism, unlike Libertarianism, is inherently statist in practice and theory.
Not true. Classical liberalism and paleoconservatism are not statist as prominent figures like Barry Goldwater and Ron Paul demonstrate. Joe Sobran the columnist and Pat Buchannan aren't statists either.
A brief response to Rawlings: all the recent conservative greats--Buckley, Will, Reagan, Ron Paul and Goldwater--have had libertarian impulses. Buchanan and Paul have been less than ideal on issues like immigration and trade; in fact, Buchanan is an out-and-out protectionist, which is just as economic-illiterate as the left-fascists.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Robert Ariail via Townhall |
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists
Kenny Rogers, "This Woman". With the Parton duet, Rogers' dominance in the pop charts started to fade. He would have one more Top 20 hit, a collaborative effort, later in 1984, and then he wouldn't chart Top 40 until 1999 (one time). He would continue to hit the A/C and country charts through the rest of the 80's, but by the 90's he was no longer hitting the A/C charts and the country Top 10, except for the one song in 1999, I'm familiar with 3 tunes in the remaining countdown, which we'll wrap up in roughly a week.
