How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Adam Smith
So 90 faculty members and priests at Georgetown, the Jesuit University in Washington, are "Political Hacks"?
It is a blog! What are the chances of those 90 really being in lockstep? About the same as all of them being child molesters?
Gee, that's nice. Apparently you, who never spent any much of any time growing up with Catholics, think Catholicism is a "cult". And please don't attempt to deny it because your pathetic brand of religion believes every Christian sect outside of your own is a "cult".
It is a blog! What are the chances of those 90 really being in lockstep? About the same as all of them being child molesters?
Gee, that's nice. Apparently you, who never spent any much of any time growing up with Catholics, think Catholicism is a "cult". And please don't attempt to deny it because your pathetic brand of religion believes every Christian sect outside of your own is a "cult".
=Bob
Hmm! At 8:11 PM Bob rants! Just what jug did that come out of?
"America loves a winner and will not tolerate a loser" - George Patton
Joined: Jul 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 5,181 Location: Fallbrook, CA
Re: Ryan, Rand, and Jesus « Reply #9 on May 8, 2012, 1:16am »
The author says that the GOP should have more compassion for the poor. Well, who could deny that compassion for the poor is a good thing? The problem is, just how does that compassion translate into political action? And what should be the source of that compassion? Looks like the author has one idea and I have another. I suspect that he prefers that compassion should flow from the government first and foremost. I believe that compassion should flow from private individuals and organizations.
But there is another problem here. Compassion is not a good basis on which to create prudent government policy. When you start doing that, there is no end to it, and no turning back. Let's take as an example something that is much in the news today: the political upheaval that has touched so much of Europe, most recently seen in the election in France.
I have no doubt that the French felt strongly that they were motivated by compassion when they put into place government policies (e.g., retirement at age 55, virtual lifetime employment guarantees, etc.) that were imprudent and unsustainable. No matter how well intentioned they may be, unwise policies based on politicians' ideas of compassion do not trump economic realities.
A very basic political lesson that we are learning again and again is that once a government has given the people some benefit it is next to impossible to take it back. Even when reducing or eliminating that benefit is clearly the prudent and, in the long run, compassionate thing to do.
Re: Ryan, Rand, and Jesus « Reply #10 on May 8, 2012, 11:51am »
I find it ironic that many, if not most, of the 'cons' on this board who rail against government pensions and workers ALSO have a government pension or two and have probably retired at a fairly early age.
If this isn't classic, as Joe would say, "I've got mine, so fug you". I don't know what is.
And BTW, I'm 60 with two teenage sons at home so I expect to be working well past 65.
« Last Edit: May 8, 2012, 11:52am by AlwaysAnAztec »
I find it ironic that many, if not most, of the 'cons' on this board who rail against government pensions and workers ALSO have a government pension or two and have probably retired at a fairly early age.
If this isn't classic, as Joe would say, "I've got mine, so fug you". I don't know what is.
And BTW, I'm 60 with two teenage sons at home so I expect to be working well past 65.
Well, I guess I am one of the principal targets of your post. I retired at age 60 from public school teaching (30 years of service) at about 70% of my final salary. You can be darned well sure that I count myself fortunate to have been able to do that. On the other hand, I would be much better off now had I taught a couple of years more (my pension would be even better, so much so that I would probably not have been substitute teaching these past nine years). Why did I not do that? Well, without going into detail, there was a personal health issue that made it advisable that I retire when I did.
But why should I not have taken advantage of the retirement rules? I did not make those rules and it would have been pointless not to have retired at age 60 just to make a political point.
There is something else that is really wrong in your post. Whether I or anyone else benefits from the rules of a retirement system is not the issue. I wish everyone could retire at age 60 with a good pension. The issue is whether such a system is sustainable in the long run. As a nation we are coming to grips with the defects of decisions made by government and business years ago. One of my favorite examples of that sort of thing is the notorious UAW Jobs Bank, in which laid off auto workers were paid most of their salary for doing nothing.
(Here is a brief run down on how the Jobs Bank, since ended, worked. . .
And here (from Wikipedia's UAW article) is how that agreement seriously hurt the American auto industry. . .
The Big Three also based their respective market strategies on fuel-inefficient SUVs, and suffered from lower quality perception (vis-a-vis automobiles manufactured by Japanese or European car makers). Accordingly, the Big Three directed vehicle development focused on light trucks (which had better profit margins) in order to offset the considerably higher labor costs, falling considerably behind in the sedan market segments to Japanese and European automakers.
Mismanagement at the Big Three auto makers contributed a great deal to the melt down of 2008, to be sure. But deals such as the jobs bank and work rules were agreed to by both management and labor without, apparently, either party wondering how those agreements would affect the industry down the road. What is important to realize is not whether this party or that party is or was responsible for bad deals. What is important is that we understand that certain aspects of our economy cannot go on indefinitely and must be changed, even though that change may well be painful.
Another case in point is Social Security. There were 15 workers to every one SS recipient in 1950, making the burden on those 15 workers tax-wise fairly manageable. Now the ratio is 3 to 1, if that, and it's still headed in the wrong direction.
What is important to realize is that huge mistakes were made, from the UAW/auto industry contracts to the City of San Diego's pension plan, that were foolish from the start and whose very harmful economic fallout we are struggling with to this day.)
The issue is not one of the oldsters clutching their ill-gotten gains to their bosoms while the younger folks starve and freeze in the snow. It's a question of what is sustainable economically over the long haul and what is not. It's a bit like the law of gravity. As much as I might like to walk from the top of on tall building to the top of another building a hundred feet away, my attempt to do so will teach me a very clear lesson on the limits of desire and will power.
Some things just won't work, though in some cases (examples cited above) those who make the deals may not discover their folly for many years. By that time, of course, a whole new generation has come along and has to pick up the pieces.
I find it ironic that many, if not most, of the 'cons' on this board who rail against government pensions and workers ALSO have a government pension or two and have probably retired at a fairly early age.
If this isn't classic, as Joe would say, "I've got mine, so fug you". I don't know what is.
And BTW, I'm 60 with two teenage sons at home so I expect to be working well past 65.
Which came first, the poor planning or becoming a liberal?
Re: Ryan, Rand, and Jesus « Reply #13 on May 8, 2012, 3:34pm »
William & Win..
I don't fault your retirements you earned them and William, since my wife is a teacher, I know what you went through to earn yours. Believe me when I say that you deserve more than you got.
However, I do fault your hypocrisy and stand by my original statement.
I don't fault your retirements you earned them and William, since my wife is a teacher, I know what you went through to earn yours. Believe me when I say that you deserve more than you got.
However, I do fault your hypocrisy and stand by my original statement.
I do not know about William, but I see no hypocrisy in advocating a 401K type retirement for all of us. That is already the bigger part of my Federal retirement and it will not go away should I pass away.
Re: Ryan, Rand, and Jesus « Reply #15 on May 8, 2012, 6:59pm »
It is a forest for the trees issue.
I think the Priests would agree that the absolute best social welfare program is a living wage job. Living wage jobs are best found in a robust economy. Economies are buoyed when those with capital invest in enterprises instead of hunker down in attempts to avoid the tax man.
Yes, the Ryan budget may cut some programs that some poor could use right now. But the Ryan budget will likely help grow the economy faster than it is growing now (elimintating some poor) and also help avoid a "Greek" collapse that would ultimately help no one. So, in a Bentham-esqse "doing the most good for the most people", it could be said that the Ryan budget is more compassionate than the do-nothing but more of the same Obama alternative.
Gee, that's nice. Apparently you, who never spent any much of any time growing up with Catholics, think Catholicism is a "cult". And please don't attempt to deny it because your pathetic brand of religion believes every Christian sect outside of your own is a "cult".
=Bob
Hmm! At 8:11 PM Bob rants! Just what jug did that come out of?
No rant, just a statement of fact. Your post exhibits your complete lack of understanding of the Catholic ethos. I don't agree with the Catholic Church on a number of things, but I do recognize that it generally is consistent in its beliefs and that includes charity to the poor. How many hospitals do the non-denominational Christians run as non-profit institutions? How many can compare with Catholic Charities? Do any of them run the sort of operation that Father Joe ran (and keep in mind I'm not a big fan of Father Joe)? Do any of them believe in opposing abortion and opposing the death penalty for the same reasons?
And, quite frankly, your snarky comment about child molestation was rather egregious. I don't like what the church did any more than you do but that doesn't define Catholic theology.
Re: Ryan, Rand, and Jesus « Reply #17 on May 9, 2012, 2:45am »
Why is it that government "takes care" of the poor? People are more than willing/capable of doing it without the government. Last time I checked Jesus didn't approve of theft either (taking money from one group to give to another). Robbing a bank or business doesn't become okay if you give it to the poor or simply just keep it because you're poor. People don't chastise the bank or business as being anti-Christian/hating the poor for being upset about being robbed.
Why is it that government "takes care" of the poor? People are more than willing/capable of doing it without the government. Last time I checked Jesus didn't approve of theft either (taking money from one group to give to another). Robbing a bank or business doesn't become okay if you give it to the poor or simply just keep it because you're poor. People don't chastise the bank or business as being anti-Christian/hating the poor for being upset about being robbed.
Nations are an aggregation of people with mutual interests, are they not? It is in the best interest of the whole to see to the needs of the weakest. Since our government is the people, (I assume you believe that. I have my occasional doubts, but that is another discussion.) people are in fact helping people. How do you know that individuals do it better? Prove that, if you please.
When it comes to what Christ thought, you are not going to be my authoritative source-ever.
Hmm! At 8:11 PM Bob rants! Just what jug did that come out of?
No rant, just a statement of fact. Your post exhibits your complete lack of understanding of the Catholic ethos. I don't agree with the Catholic Church on a number of things, but I do recognize that it generally is consistent in its beliefs and that includes charity to the poor. How many hospitals do the non-denominational Christians run as non-profit institutions? How many can compare with Catholic Charities? Do any of them run the sort of operation that Father Joe ran (and keep in mind I'm not a big fan of Father Joe)? Do any of them believe in opposing abortion and opposing the death penalty for the same reasons?
And, quite frankly, your snarky comment about child molestation was rather egregious. I don't like what the church did any more than you do but that doesn't define Catholic theology.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/home.png "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/help.png "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/search.png "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/login.png "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/register.png "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/search2.png "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/print.png "[Print]")
Author
Logged
![[avatar]](http://i325.photobucket.com/albums/k387/aztecwin/th_Annoyer-1.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[image]](http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/3903/hillmansig.gif "[image]")