Support NeoGAF

[PantherLotus]

How the White House played Petraeus

I'm going to read this article, but I'm certain you cut out the KEY POINT pointing to wtf that last line means.

 

[Byakuya769]

I'm going to read this article, but I'm certain you cut out the KEY POINT pointing to wtf that last line means.

Read the entire thing quickly.. and nope. Just think it's an incredibly overblown closing line.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

We didn't learn it after Vietnam, and won't after these two. FFS we blew into Iraq with the minimum troops required and no realistic plan for nation-building or maintaining security. How much lazier could Rumsfeld be?

I'd replace lazier with "more arrogant" but that's my only disagreement.

 

[PantherLotus]

Nope, I was wrong. The thesis -- though I'm sure there's something there -- is missing what feels like an entire paragraph about how Patreus let something leak that indirectly led to the end of his tenure.

Too bad, because it sounded interesting.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Study: $1400 Tax Hike Needed to Fund US Pensions

U.S. state and local governments will need to raise taxes by $1,398 per household every year for the next 30 years if they are to fully fund their pension systems, a study released on Wednesday said.

The study, co-authored by Joshua Rauh of Northwestern University and Robert Novy-Marx of the University of Rochester, both of whom are finance professors, argues that states will have to cut services or raise taxes to make up funding gaps if promises made to municipal employees are to be honored.

Pension funding in U.S. cities and states has deteriorated in the wake of the 2007-2009 economic recession as investment earnings dropped, and some states, such as New Jersey and Illinois, skipped or reduced required payments.

The issue has sparked heated debates, from the streets of Wisconsin's capital, Madison, where thousands demonstrated over public employees' rights to bargain, to New Jersey, where lawmakers are expected to give final approval this week to a plan that will scale back benefits for public sector workers.

Rauh and Novy-Marx have previously stirred up the debate over state pension obligations, including the dire prediction that existing pension liabilities total around $3 trillion, if expected returns on investments are not counted.

Other studies have estimated the shortfall as far less. The Pew Center on the States, for example, found the pension shortfall for states could be $1.8 trillion, or as much as $2.4 trillion based on a 30-year Treasury bond.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43498037

 

[Jackson50]

Obama said : "Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security."
What does that even mean? Is that clear to everyone here?
I'm guessing it's similar to the Iraq situation.

I think it is clear. As you surmise, it will be similar to Iraq. Pursuant to the SOFA and SFA with Iraq, we withdrew to our bases and could only prosecute military action in either self-defense or in conjunction with Iraqi forces. Eventually, that will occur in Afghanistan as we transfer operational command to Afghan forces.

Or a way to subtly say fuck Afghanistan this shit's not worth it?

If so, he is being imperceptibly subtle. After the past 2-1/2 years, I am fairly certain he thinks that shit's worth it.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Here's a fun game. Which Republican Presidential candidate is this?

On Afghanistan, I firmly believe that we are at a point where we've got to stay the course, and we've got to finish the job. Reports coming out of Helmand right now are positive. ... David Petraeus, who wrote the book on counterinsurgency and on the surge strategy, is successfully prosecuting the surge.

Now, President Obama has not told the story the way President Bush did. President Bush did let the country know where we were at, and I give him a lot of credit because when he was getting all sorts of invective pointed against him, he stood against the world for what he knew to be right in dealing with terrorism. And perhaps no other would have stood the way that he did. I give him great credit for that.

Now in Afghanistan, we are making great progress. We have to win southern Afghanistan, then we have to go on and win eastern Afghanistan. I believe that we will be victorious, and we'll end it. I understand why people are frustrated. I completely understand. But I do trust General Petraeus in that effort and in what he is doing over there. And I think that they are doing what we need to do.

Spoiler

Bachmann

 

[GhaleonEB]

Obama said : "Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security."
What does that even mean? Is that clear to everyone here?
I'm guessing it's similar to the Iraq situation.

Both of these wars have been such huge disasters, but Afghanistan seems the biggest failure to me. It should have been over long ago.
I hope and want to believe that this country has learned a serious lesson from these misguided policies. I sure have anyway.

You are omitting key context. The 2014 date was part of the withdwawl timeline Obama described:

As a result, starting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and we will bring home a total of 33,000 troops by next summer, fully recovering the surge I announced at West Point. After this initial reduction, our troops will continue coming home at a steady pace as Afghan security forces move into the lead. Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security.​

This may well mean a transitional force ala Iraq. But as an end point for combat operations, I think it was clear.

 

[Cyan]

Study: $1400 Tax Hike Needed to Fund US Pensions

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43498037

Yeah, pension obligations are a millstone. I wonder what numbers they'd come up with using more realistic assumptions, though. Probably closer to the Pew Center's $1.8 trillion, still an enormous amount.

 

[ToxicAdam]

I know Gore-bashing from me is going to come as a huge shock, but did anyone see Gore's piece in Rolling Stone? It was all your typical puffery, but he took a swipe at the Obama administration for their ineffective energy/climate policies. Specifically, he snipes at Obama for not using his office as a bully pulpit on the issue of climate change.

Did Al Gore forget that he had a historic opportunity to join this administration and fundamentally change climate policy in this country? But, he turned it down so he can go peddle his slide show to any university and environmental group willing to shell out the six-figure fee. When it came time to do the real work for what he believes in, he was in his private jet, living his rock star life while begging for happy-ending massages.

A man who will tell you the world needs population control, but has four children himself. The guy who turned on Bill Clinton during the 2000 election and folded up his tent the second the results were in and was barely around in 2004 to help out Kerry. What a massive fraud.

 

[speculawyer]

Here's a fun game. Which Republican Presidential candidate is this?

Spoiler

Bachmann

Said Bush kept us informed? Thinks we can win in Afghanistan? Sounds pretty batshit crazy to me.

 

[speculawyer]

Heartless. Killing Civilians to Protect Civilians.

Do you really think they are intentionally targeting civilians?

BTW, take it up with UK & the French as they are running the air war there.

 

[PantherLotus]

I know Gore-bashing from me is going to come as a huge shock, but did anyone see Gore's piece in Rolling Stone? It was all your typical puffery, but he took a swipe at the Obama administration for their ineffective energy/climate policies. Specifically, he snipes at Obama for not using his office as a bully pulpit on the issue of climate change.

Did Al Gore forget that he had a historic opportunity to join this administration and fundamentally change climate policy in this country? But, he turned it down so he can go peddle his slide show to any university and environmental group willing to shell out the six-figure fee. When it came time to do the real work for what he believes in, he was in his private jet, living his rock star life while begging for happy-ending massages.

A man who will tell you the world needs population control, but has four children himself. The guy who turned on Bill Clinton during the 2000 election and folded up his tent the second the results were in and was barely around in 2004 to help out Kerry. What a massive fraud.

This is a remarkably sober assessment, TA (except the idea that joining the admin would be considered "the real work for what he believes in", and the needless reference to non-existent charges). I think history will be less kind.

 

[ViperVisor]

Of the 56 environmentally 'skeptical' books in the 1990s 92% were linked to right-wing foundations. The 1980s 13 books and 100% had links.

TA, why do you do this for free?

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I know Gore-bashing from me is going to come as a huge shock, but did anyone see Gore's piece in Rolling Stone? It was all your typical puffery, but he took a swipe at the Obama administration for their ineffective energy/climate policies. Specifically, he snipes at Obama for not using his office as a bully pulpit on the issue of climate change.

Did Al Gore forget that he had a historic opportunity to join this administration and fundamentally change climate policy in this country? But, he turned it down so he can go peddle his slide show to any university and environmental group willing to shell out the six-figure fee. When it came time to do the real work for what he believes in, he was in his private jet, living his rock star life while begging for happy-ending massages.

A man who will tell you the world needs population control, but has four children himself. The guy who turned on Bill Clinton during the 2000 election and folded up his tent the second the results were in and was barely around in 2004 to help out Kerry. What a massive fraud.

The "worlds first carbon credit billionaire" is wondering why more money isn't being funneled his way? shocking

 

[Cyan]

"worlds first carbon credit billionaire"

Hehe. Is this the new Gore talking point?

Also: do you have a source for him being a billionaire?

 

[Aaron]

The "worlds first carbon credit billionaire" is wondering why more money isn't being funneled his way? shocking

Saying things like these don't help your case, no matter how valid or invalid it might be. They just make you sound crazy.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Hehe. Is this the new Gore talking point?

Also: do you have a source for him being a billionaire?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...d-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

This is my unimpeachable source.

 

[Cyan]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...d-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

This is my unimpeachable source.

Ah, gotcha. I would have been surprised if it had been true.

 

[sc0la]

This is a remarkably sober assessment, TA (except the idea that joining the admin would be considered "the real work for what he believes in", and the needless reference to non-existent charges). I think history will be less kind.

I know. I had to do a double take when I realized I agreed with a TA post about Gore.

In my defense I think there is plenty of common ground on Gore being a douche whether you believe in climate change or not lol

 

[Oblivion]

I know this is sort of old, but it seems Leon Panetta got approved with 100 votes (!!!) in the Senate. Obviously most of you guys already knew that.

I actually don't know much about Panetta. I've heard his name get brought up a lot, but have no clue about what kind of a CIA director he was. The Reps giving him a unanimous votes makes me curious, is this guy a major war hawk or something?

 

[Agnostic]

I know this is sort of old, but it seems Leon Panetta got approved with 100 votes (!!!) in the Senate. Obviously most of you guys already knew that.

I actually don't know much about Panetta. I've heard his name get brought up a lot, but have no clue about what kind of a CIA director he was. The Reps giving him a unanimous votes makes me curious, is this guy a major war hawk or something?

Something...something.. shots to Bin Laden's dome guaranteed bipartisan support. I believe it was that simple regarding the vote.

Edit: So really, I have nothing to enlighten you.

 

[Diablos]

I know Gore-bashing from me is going to come as a huge shock, but did anyone see Gore's piece in Rolling Stone? It was all your typical puffery, but he took a swipe at the Obama administration for their ineffective energy/climate policies. Specifically, he snipes at Obama for not using his office as a bully pulpit on the issue of climate change.

Did Al Gore forget that he had a historic opportunity to join this administration and fundamentally change climate policy in this country? But, he turned it down so he can go peddle his slide show to any university and environmental group willing to shell out the six-figure fee. When it came time to do the real work for what he believes in, he was in his private jet, living his rock star life while begging for happy-ending massages.

A man who will tell you the world needs population control, but has four children himself. The guy who turned on Bill Clinton during the 2000 election and folded up his tent the second the results were in and was barely around in 2004 to help out Kerry. What a massive fraud.

Al Gore is a pussy. I'd obviously have much rather seen him as the 43rd President, but yeah, he has no room to be critical.

I just keep thinking back to how badly he fucked up the 2000 election... it was in his fucking hands. Ugh.

 

[ViperVisor]

Rand Paul is a real piece of work.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/22/987447/-Bernie-Sanders-and-Al-Franken-CLOWN-Rand-Paul

Smart-ass sarcasm + SAT word, I can't lose.

Bernie Sanders and Al Franken spoil his fun with about 3 dashes of reality.


DEPLOY Homer Simpson glasses.

Pull something absurd out of ass, question the absurdity of it all.

 

[Oblivion]

Something...something.. shots to Bin Laden's dome guaranteed bipartisan support. I believe it was that simple regarding the vote.

Edit: So really, I have nothing to enlighten you.

Sure, Panetta might have been in charge when the order went down to kill Bin Laden, but reality has never stopped Republicans from being dick heads. I would assume they'd just credit Bush some how and come up with some bullshit reason to block Panetta's confirmation.


So somewhat random question, but this has been bugging me for a while. I don't know too much about Clinton's foreign policy when it came to Iraq, but snopes had an article that listed all the Dems that supported invading Iraq in the 90s. What exactly would be the difference with how Clinton would have handled Iraq, compared to Bush?

 

[Kosmo]

Study: $1400 Tax Hike Needed to Fund US Pensions

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43498037

Defined benefit pensions need to be outlawed.

 

[eznark]

not to be a diablos (i keed diablos!) but what's up with obama's numbers at gallup? he went from 49-43 to 43-49 in a span of two whole days. wtf? they change their voter models? something happen i miss?

Daily polls lol, and also, isn't that shift almost within their absurd margin of error for the daily tracking poll?

Obama has to be counting blessings to Allah this morning that the GOP is full of democrats, crazies and a Mr. Roberts wanna be. More shitty jobs numbers rolling in.

Summer of recovery 2.0!

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Study: $1400 Tax Hike Needed to Fund US Pensions
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43498037

Defined benefit pensions need to be outlawed.

This is where public unions really screwed up. Instead of getting the money promised to their members up front, they decided to take it in their retirement. Then politicians never fully funded these pension plans or lost a lot of it in the stock market. With states strap for cash, I see no other alternative than the unions taking a hit on their pension plans. This will just lead to them wanting money up front next time negotiations come around, ex. salary increases. States have received labor on the cheap for the last 10 years because of this. This will mostly effect teachers and could lead to some nasty strikes in the future. How would you like it if your employer broke a contract to pay you at a later date? Totally messed up system right now, and a good example of people wanting the services they get but not fully paying for them.

 

[Measley]

Rand Paul is a real piece of work.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/22/987447/-Bernie-Sanders-and-Al-Franken-CLOWN-Rand-Paul

Smart-ass sarcasm + SAT word, I can't lose.

Bernie Sanders and Al Franken spoil his fun with about 3 dashes of reality.

We need more senators like Sanders and Franken.

They're absolutely right. Prevention saves money in the long run.

 

[Plinko]

Here's a fun game. Which Republican Presidential candidate is this?

Spoiler

Bachmann

Invoking President Bush AND insisting we stay the course in Afghanistan.

It's like she has no intention of winning the election.

 

[eznark]

This is where public unions really screwed up. Instead of getting the money promised to their members up front, they decided to take it in their retirement. Then politicians never fully funded these pension plans or lost a lot of it in the stock market. With states strap for cash, I see no other alternative than the unions taking a hit on their pension plans. This will just lead to them wanting money up front next time negotiations come around, ex. salary increases. States have received labor on the cheap for the last 10 years because of this. This will mostly effect teachers and could lead to some nasty strikes in the future. How would you like it if your employer broke a contract to pay you at a later date? Totally messed up system right now, and a good example of people wanting the services they get but not fully paying for them.

Unless the unions negotiate those changes, aren't states and local governments essentially forced to honor past contracts? They can only make changes going forward, correct?

I guess they could file bankruptcy or something. I know some town in Alabama stopp funding pensions but not sure how they got away with it, legally.

 

[Kosmo]

This is where public unions really screwed up. Instead of getting the money promised to their members up front, they decided to take it in their retirement. Then politicians never fully funded these pension plans or lost a lot of it in the stock market. With states strap for cash, I see no other alternative than the unions taking a hit on their pension plans. This will just lead to them wanting money up front next time negotiations come around, ex. salary increases. States have received labor on the cheap for the last 10 years because of this. This will mostly effect teachers and could lead to some nasty strikes in the future. How would you like it if your employer broke a contract to pay you at a later date? Totally messed up system right now, and a good example of people wanting the services they get but not fully paying for them.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with this, as I think most States could operate with many fewer employees (not counting teachers, just run of the mill paper pushers), but I work pretty closely with some large groups of retirees on a state pension - when the benefits states pay out are going about 2/3 to retirees and 1/3 to active employees, clearly there is a problem. Those with State pensions don't care because of the State ever defaults on their pension, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. will have to step in and we'll just fund it with more debt.

I guess they could file bankruptcy or something. I know some town in Alabama stopp funding pensions but not sure how they got away with it, legally.

I think they basically said "Look, we don't have the money, so sue us, we don't have anything to give you anyway." If the town doesn't have the money, what are you going to do? I don't think a judge could impose a ruling that would make the city use all tax money to pay the retirees before they pay for essentials like public safety. It's a bit like a homeless person burning down your house when you don't have insurance - sure, you could sue him and he could end up in jail, but you really can't get anything out of him.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Unless the unions negotiate those changes, aren't states and local governments essentially forced to honor past contracts? They can only make changes going forward, correct?

I guess they could file bankruptcy or something. I know some town in Alabama stopp funding pensions but not sure how they got away with it, legally.

I only really know about it from the teaching angle. Educators as a demographic tend to be older, white, and female. So you have this really old labor force that is about to retire in the next 10 years. In order to pay them, the states have started to require teachers currently working to donate more of their earnings into the pension system, which is basically a salary cut on current earnings for those working now. So it's basically like social security in a transfer of wealth from the young to the old with the young being promise that they'll get theirs when they retire. That is the current work around. But in the future you can expect the unions to demand more money up front than going to retirement systems.

Edit: To make this simple: They are not lowering the total compensation a teacher receives. They are only changing when they receive it. So, lower current earnings and higher future earnings. Basically passing the buck on down the road. Then it won't be their problem when they are out of office.

 

[eznark]

I only really know about it from the teaching angle. Educators as a demographic tend to be older, white, and female. So you have this really old labor force that is about to retire in the next 10 years. In order to pay them, the states have started to require teachers currently working to donate more of their earnings into the pension system, which is basically a salary cut on current earnings for those working now. So it's basically like social security in a transfer of wealth from the young to the old with the young being promise that they'll get theirs when they retire. That is the current work around. But in the future you can expect the unions to demand more money up front than going to retirement systems.

Now you see why many states are passing laws limiting collective bargaining.

I think they basically said "Look, we don't have the money, so sue us, we don't have anything to give you anyway." If the town doesn't have the money, what are you going to do? I don't think a judge could impose a ruling that would make the city use all tax money to pay the retirees before they pay for essentials like public safety.

I don't see why a judge couldn't force asset liquidation to meet some of those debt obligation. The state shouldn't be shielded from meeting it's contractual obligations if it has the financial (liquid or otherwise) wherewithal to do so.

It's nothing like a homeless person, unless the homeless persona also happened to own millions of dollars worth of land, buildings and equipment.

 

[WickedAngel]

Now you see why many states are passing laws limiting collective bargaining.

Yes, because punishing the employees for the mismanaged finances and obligations of the employers makes perfect sense.

 

[eznark]

Yes, because punishing the employees for the mismanaged finances and obligations of the employers makes perfect sense.

Whether or not it makes sense, it mitigates (to an extent) the issues Pangloss brings up.

Add to that the fact that teacher strikes are illegal and at some point there isn't a lot they can do.

 

[Kosmo]

Yes, because punishing the employees for the mismanaged finances and obligations of the employers makes perfect sense.

So get away from defined benefit pensions - problem solved.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Oh, for the love of God, you stupid, petty, fuck...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin.../06/23/AGvFEJhH_story.html?wpisrc=al_national

 

[AlteredBeast]

Rand Paul is a real piece of work.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/22/987447/-Bernie-Sanders-and-Al-Franken-CLOWN-Rand-Paul

Ughhh, clicked on that link and a pop-up with Smuggy McGee came up saying, Daily KOS Action! Tell Cable Providers to treat Current TV the same as MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News.

LOL!! I said no thanks, naturally.

 

[eznark]

Oh, for the love of God, you stupid, petty, fuck...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin.../06/23/AGvFEJhH_story.html?wpisrc=al_national

Weird timing. International pressure force his hand?

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Weird timing. International pressure force his hand?

I don't understand it. Gas prices have actually come down in the last couple of weeks. We're going to open the Strategic Reserve so people can drive the fuck around for the summer?

This is the pinnacle of opportunistic idiocy.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Weird timing. International pressure force his hand?

Pretty strange considering all of the times we could have used the release and never got it. I still remember paying 459 a gallon driving through California in 08!

 

[Plinko]

Oh, for the love of God, you stupid, petty, fuck...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin.../06/23/AGvFEJhH_story.html?wpisrc=al_national

Just...odd.

Brent Crude is down more than $8 a barrel right now and US Crude down more than $4, which is nice, but the slightest supply disruption/hint of conflict will jack prices right back up.

There is NO shortage of oil right now. That's what bothers me about this.

"I'm really surprised. Everyone's been saying they've got enough stocks. This should keep WTI (U.S. crude) under the $100 (per barrel), but really we want Brent there, and this should help," said Robert Montefusco, broker at Sucden Financial.

It would be nice if supply and demand actually played a role here. I've read several analysts saying oil would be near $50 a barrel.

 

[eznark]

I don't understand it. Gas prices have actually come down in the last couple of weeks. We're going to open the Strategic Reserve so people can drive the fuck around for the summer?

This is the pinnacle of opportunistic idiocy.

Well, we are matching the "international community" so a total of 60 million barrels will be unleashed, so I wonder if this is more for Europe's sake?

 

[Invisible_Insane]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/business/24oil.html?_r=1&hp

"The United States will lead an international effort to release 60 million barrels of petroleum reserves to world markets"

Well, we are matching the "international community" so a total of 60 million barrels will be unleashed, so I wonder if this is more for Europe's sake?

The Libya intervention is for Europe's sake, so why the hell not, I guess.

 

[Chichikov]

Rand Paul is a real piece of work.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/22/987447/-Bernie-Sanders-and-Al-Franken-CLOWN-Rand-Paul

It pisses me off that we have this discussion as a fiscal issue.
And it's all posturing anyway.
It's an ideological question.
It's about the role of government.
Sanders and Franklin believe that it's the government's responsibility make sure senior citizens don't go hungry in this country and Rand Paul doesn't.

I understand why people like Paul want to engage this question as budgetary question and nothing else, but I don't think liberals should.

 

[AlteredBeast]

It pisses me off that we have this discussion as a fiscal issue.
And it's all posturing anyway.
It's an ideological question.
It's about the role of government.
Sanders and Franklin believe that it's the government's responsibility make sure senior citizens don't go hungry in this country and Rand Paul doesn't.

I understand why people like Paul want to engage this question as budgetary question and nothing else, but I don't think liberals should.

I think it is exactly the thing liberals should debate. It is the very core of ideological differences.

 

[Jackson50]

Oh, for the love of God, you stupid, petty, fuck...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin.../06/23/AGvFEJhH_story.html?wpisrc=al_national

I think we need a gas tax holiday.

I know this is sort of old, but it seems Leon Panetta got approved with 100 votes (!!!) in the Senate. Obviously most of you guys already knew that.

I actually don't know much about Panetta. I've heard his name get brought up a lot, but have no clue about what kind of a CIA director he was. The Reps giving him a unanimous votes makes me curious, is this guy a major war hawk or something?

Major war hawk may not be accurate, but he is amenable to military action. He advocated the increase in drone strikes. He supported the "surge" in Afghanistan. Moreover, he has been quite deferential to the military on national security issues. Additionally, I have read that he fostered better relations with Congress regarding intelligence oversight. This should not be surprising as he is the consummate beltway insider. He is a former congressman. He served as Director of the OMB. And, most importantly, he served as Clinton's Chief of Staff. Thus, he already had good working relations with many Senators, and he was quintessentially conventional. A conventional beltway insider with an amiable relationship with Senators? The dude was a shoo-in.

So somewhat random question, but this has been bugging me for a while. I don't know too much about Clinton's foreign policy when it came to Iraq, but snopes had an article that listed all the Dems that supported invading Iraq in the 90s. What exactly would be the difference with how Clinton would have handled Iraq, compared to Bush?

Well, Clinton implemented a strategy of containment towards Iraq. Economic and political sanctions were used to stunt Iraqi machinations and compel compliance with UNSC Resolution 687. As his term progressed, the policy became decidedly active as intermittent military strikes were used to compel compliance. Furthermore, Clinton did examine the issue of regime change. And he considered military action. However, a myriad of reasons militated against it. Therefore, they favored other means to foster regime change. This culminated in the Iraq Liberation Act. Aside from that, it is difficult to predict how Clinton would have handled an invasion. I would guess that he would have favored robust multilateralism and international legitimation. Still, it is conjecture.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Yes, because punishing the employees for the mismanaged finances and obligations of the employers makes perfect sense.

I don't think that politicians really want to punish public employees. 50 different state legislatures did not all come up with this grand scheme. It's just the nature of pension plans. When there is a down turn they put a strain on budgets. Those that agree to them assumed, like everyone, that the economy would go up and up. Union leaders really are the ones that should be kicking themselves for allowing their compensation to be really loaded on the back end.

So get away from defined benefit pensions - problem solved.

Pension plans are really a minor problem when it comes to budgets. In fact, social security is probably the best run federal program to date. Even Republicans did not bother to mess with it in their budget. It's only during down turns that pensions become a problem due to less tax revenue (resources). But I believe this problem is out weight by the benefits they provide in their stable income for earners even during down turns. If this country solved the growth in health costs, and the drag energy has on the economy, then more resources could be dictated to pension plans. Problem solved.

 

[mckmas8808]

Here's a fun game. Which Republican Presidential candidate is this?

Spoiler

Bachmann

So is she saying we should stay longer than what Obama wants to? Because it surely reads that way. But the question is why is she saying or thinking that?