Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

Didn't read it, but your characterization is right, for the moment. What has been clear from the beginning is that there were some people who would never be satisfied (i.e., those who are in the pockets of trial lawyers). The current state of things is (like maybe all things political) the result of consensus building. They traded a few R's (who at this point are only just threatening not to support it) to pick up a few Ds.

The hope is that Kyl (or whoever that guy is from Arizona) and his crowd won't thumb their noses at the party and the 20 year morass when it comes to a final vote. Believe me, its enough of a proxy for me that I will make a list of every person on both sides of the aisle who vote against a compromise that ultimately passes.

My impressions of this stuff have been formed over time though. So when it was basically Rs vs. Ds, there were a few Ds who sorta stood out as being at least somewhat reasonable about negotiating and all.

Anyway, that's all I'm sayin. I get a chance to throw some money against Durbin, I'm reachin deep.

I don't think it was correct to allow United to continue as a business but dump its pensions on the PBGC. I think dumping pensions on the PBGC should be reserved for companies actually going all the way bankrupt, not part of a reorg. So, yes, it concerns me

Outside of the United situation, in the more normal situation a company actually goes all the way bankrupt. Given that the alternative is that the people never have had a pension at all, I am not hugely unduly upset because it is primarily the relatively large pensions that get cut. From the article: "The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp['s] . . . rules allow a maximum benefit of $45,000 a year for those who retire at age 65." A DB pension benefit can't be more than, I think, about $170,000 a year. Yes, I realize that there's a big difference between $45k and $170k, but it's better than the nothing they would get in some other circumstances -- you can't get blood from a stone, and if a company is for real bankrupt, having that $45k guaranteed is better than nothing. Note that these are not plans that the employees contribute to, and that people can't get a bigger pension than what they were earning -- so people with the big pensions were making at a minimum the amount they were getting from the plan.

I guess, my question kind of is, would you rather that the employees had not had this plan at all?

I would not have a problem with a law that required that all executives would have to give up their supplemental pensions, and that money put into the qualified (broad-based) plans, before it could go to the PBGC. Unfortunately I think that would have to be prospective only.

What do you think the solution is? Ignoring the United reorg situation, and sticking to the basic rule that only companies which actually go out of business are dumping the plans on the PBGC, and keeping in mind that more companies go out of business when the market sucks -- so the value of the pension trust may be falling as the company becomes less and less able to meet expenses. I guess it could speed up the bankruptcy filing . . .

How about doing more to ensure that all companies are properly funding their pension plans?

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

I'll say it . . . I'm not outraged by the description.

Jesus, Ty. What are you, 10 years old? Who wouldn't agree with that statement?

How do we do that? Keeping in mind that sometimes, the market falls, and that has a big fat impact on pension trusts -- a plan can go from overfunded to quite underfunded in a day. Also, recall that companies get a tax deduction when they put money in -- so the temptation in years in which the company does well is to massively overfund so as to avoid tax liability. It's my understanding that people were quite outraged about companies doing THAT at some point ("my understanding" because this happened I think before I finished college -- wasn't in the industry yet), so Congress limited the ability of companies to sock it away in up years.

We could pay people to enforce the law, like we do with many other laws.

Is the law, as written, not being enforced? I was not aware of that.

Ty, I am seriously considering revoking your righteous outrage privileges if you aren't going to have anything helpful or even sensible to say about this. You can say, "shit, that sucks" -- but nothing more critical than that -- unless you come up with more than platitudes.

Look, either what United did up to its bankruptcy was OK under law, in which case we need to change the law to require companies to fund their pensions so that people get the benefits they were promised, or what United did was not OK, in which case we need to enforce those rules better. Is it not that simple?

So you are not upset about the pension system in general, but just about United?

Damn activist bankruptcy judges. I'm actually not sure what the standard is for dumping a plan on the PBGC, but I don't think it generally happens in a reorg/bailout.

There's no way to guarantee full funding in any absolute way -- even if you want to say that companies that can't keep trusts fully funded even when the market falls have to liquidate, and the pension fund is the first creditor to get anything, there may be a shortfall in the fund post-liquidation. Plus that would seem to create other problems. It's already pretty high priority, I think. Should it have higher or lower priority than, say, payroll? Secured debt? Unpaid payroll taxes? Unpaid other taxes?

free trade
 

We seem to all agree on tariffs. Government subsidies are bad but I think they screw the country that provides them as much as it screws everyone else. The country that provides them taxes their own people, so the tax payer of the subsidizing country is paying so people all around the world can get cheaper products.

However a treaty that cuts tariffs is not defective because it does not also cut subsidies. A treaty that cuts only tariffs is fine. Everyone is better off. That is the way GATT and then the WTO works. They first just starting cutting tariffs. Then later they moved on to other stuff like subsidies and other "Non-tariff Barriers. So a treaty that goes after tariffs is good. So is a treaty that goes after subsidies. One that goes after both is better. However, they don't need to be connected to be good. Boeing is complaining about Airbus because the subsidies violate the WTO rules. We already have a treaty in that area. However, thirty years ago the GATT (the precurser to the WTO) did not addres subsidies, so Boeing would have nothing to complain about. Before these rules European government subsidized the hell out of everything and yet nonsubsidized American companys still dominated the world market. Should the original GATT rules not have been passed because they did not include subsidy cuts. Hell no. We would have never gotten anywhere. The original GATT rules that just cut tariffs were good on their own even though they did not address subsidies. Now that we have international rules on subsidies we are even better off.

The next issue is labour and environmental laws. Free trade treaties that don't address these issues are still beneficial to everyone involved. The idea of an unfair advantage is just a bogus issue because you will never have a level playing field. If that is a requirement for a treaty then you will never pass one (which is exactly what labor - look I spelled it correctly - wants). Think about the US. We have internal free trade between the states. However, environmental laws are stricter in California and we have tougher labor laws - including a higher minimum wage. So does that mean that the California should impose a tariff on all goods coming from Alabama because they have a lower taxes, less strict environmental laws, and a lower minimum wage. etc. No. Tariffs and such would hurt everyone involved. Would it be nice if Alabama had better labor laws and environmental laws - yes - but just because they don't does not mean we should sacrifice free trade.

A free trade agreement between the US and the Caribean benefits everyone. If we cut tariffs and subsidies everyone is better off. Even if that is all the treaty addresses. It would be nice to include environmental standards and labor rules but it is hard to now where to draw the line. The central american countrys could never have our labor laws or environmental laws. They can't afford them. If they had our minimum wage no one would work. If they imposed our air polution standards every factory and car would have to be shut down. So no matter what rules we impose they are going to have an "advantage" that the labor and environmental groups can point to.

The CAFTA cuts subsidies and tariffs between our countrys. This is a good thing. It would be nice to have more but you can never get everything you want. Any step towards free trade is the step in the right direction. Any argument against CAFTA is really an argument against free trade. All the countrys involved will be better off there is just special interest groups that are going to be hurt so they are going to try and kill it. These same objections have been brought up in every free trade treaty. Every GATT round, NAFTA, the European Free Trade Area (precurser to EEC and EU), ASEAN, the labor groups and enviornmental groups have complained citing labor rules and the environment. But every one of these treatys has made all the member states invovled better off.

CAFTA is going to make every signatory state better off. Some individual groups will get hurt but that is the way the free enterprize system works. If you try and make it so no one gets hurt, you would have to shut down the system.

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

We didn't think so, Comrade Nazi.

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

I have to disagree with you on this. I think if you read it in context the statement is pretty reasonable. He is not saying our soldiers are Nazis. He is just saying he would not expect that sort of treatment in a US prison camp.

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

I will give you this. Not the smartest political move in this soundbite era.

I don't know. I don't understand whether United reflects a need to enforce the rules better, or a need for better rules.

United should be seen as a bankruptcy problem. The question is, how did it arrive in bankruptcy with an underfunded plan, no?

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

With the state of public education, who can read in context? That's why we need vouchers, right?

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

Generally, to me that means it is a good bill. When Ted Kennedy and Pat Buchanan get together on something it just can't be good.

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

An awful lot of the work that legislators do is not particularly partisan, or ideologically charged, although it often escapes notice for that very reason. Ted Kennedy has a reputation for finding people on the other side of the aisle and getting things done. This is not the side of him that helps you guys raise money, but at least people like Orrin Hatch know to take him seriously and respect what he does.

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

Well thank you for enlightening me. It seems that I just forgot Ted Kennedy and Bush's work on "No Child Left Behind" (If you will notice I picked Pat Buchanan and not Arlen Specter - you are just itching to get up on that soap box).

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

I well and truly don't understand why Teddy K. gets villified by the likes of Hank and Penske. (Cue photos of Chappaquidick and his gut.) Apparently rational people who will complain with a straight face about, e.g., judges getting "Borked" will then have a nutty about him.

free trade
 

Thanks for the substantive response.

I agree with you that labor in general may be using this issue to scuttle a deal because they don't like free trade, but there are pro-free trade Democrats who have a problem with this disparate treatment, and a concern that it will be seen as encouragement to poor islands to not enforce their laws in order to get jobs.

Your above analogy is not quite apt. The comparable issue would be if Alabama allowed BMW to violate its lax wage and hour laws, and California wanted to slap an excise tax on M3s. But I guess I should read the treaty. As I understand it, it does contain labor and environmental provisions. But it doesn't treat violations of these provisions the same as it treats violations of the commercial provisions. In other words, if Grenada slaps a 50% tax on Budweiser, the US can retaliate, but if they violate their own labor provisions, we can't.

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

Unfortunately, these days, I do expect it. That makes me very sad.

free trade
 

Yes - but that is not enough reason to kill the bill. Even if they don't enforce their laws we are still better off with the free trade.

I think this does happen. States go through fierce competition to get company's to open plants in their states. They offer tax breaks, suspension of labor laws etc. What is the difference between repealing the law and ignoring the law. Many states do all sorts of stuff to encourage business in their states yet California never does anything retalitory. We just offer other incentives to get companys to come here. But the answer is not retalitory tariffs or taxes. In addition, California does not reach agreements with Alabama that says if you don't uphold certain labor laws or environmental laws we will retaliate. We may bitch about it but we don't shoot ourself in the head by trying to screw with free trade (plus it is illegal). And I think we are better off because of it. Giving California the ability to retaliate economically if Alabama reduced its labor protections or environmental laws would not make the US better of. Trade wars would start and everyone would get screwed. But for some reason this logic is not applied to the international community.

That is still better than having no treaty at all. Right now we can't retaliate on the commercial stuff either. The treaty might be better with the retaliation clause for labor and the environment, but without it the treat is still better than the current situation.

There a lot of "free trade" Republicans that are against this treaty to. But the textile and sugar industrys are trying to kill it and they have a lot of money to throw around. Like I said, all businesses are for free trade except for the area which they trade in.

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

Stick around another year or so, and you will stop trying to make such subtle points to Club.


But seriously -- I do think the statement was a bit overblown, and the predictable result is that those who are unwilling to advocate torture openly get to ignore the substance of the speech and instead fulminate that "America's soldiers are owed an apology -- they aren't Nazis!". Check on the WSJ for that approach.


eta: Yeah, yeah -- STP

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

Unless it's a buffet.

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

I don't like him because he seems to have a knee jerk reaction to free trade, military spending and tax cuts. However, he doesn't want any bases in Massachussets closed, he wants the excise tax on Yachts cut (when people buy less Yachts it cuts employment in his son's district in Rhode Island), and loves export subsidies. His slimey conduct at Chappaquidick does not help either. It may have been an accident, but you don't wait ten hours to report it when there is a dead woman in your car.

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

Is this because you think that these men are probably holding information that if revealed could save lives? Or do you think it is OK to treat these guys like this for Kicks and Giggles because of the heinous crimes they have committed?

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

May have committed. This administration has lied about so much involving the war and related issues, you can't really believe anything they say about the detainees. I'll be really interested when we finally receive an accounting of the information gained as a result of questionable practices to see if the hit we've taken to our national prestige was worth it.

I recently read a book written by a military interrogator in Afghanistan (amazon.com link here). Several times, the targets cracked when they realized that the Americans would not torture them, and they saw that we had a better society. Too bad we've lost that high ground.

What do Deer eat?
 

There is a deer in my yard. If I want to feed her to keep her around what do I offer her?

What do Deer eat?
 

You can buy sacks of deer corn. Some hunters use sweet potatoes, also. Having said that, it's really not a good idea to encourage them to get too close. They have fleas and ticks and they can do serious damage to your (or your neighbors) shrubbery and flower gardens.

What do Deer eat?
 

Not to mention your car when you don't see her wandering around the roads at night.

What do Deer eat?
 

It just disappeared. You are probably right. It has been getting pretty crazy around here. In downtown Palo Alto they killed a cougar and up here in the hills they have trapped a few near my house. This may sound like a stupid question but do Cougars eat Deer?

What do Deer eat?
 

I imagine cougars do eat deer. I think they mainly eat deer.

More one feeding the deer: it can also spead disease in the deer population, and is illegal in many areas. http://www.outdoorcentral.com/mc/pr/03/02/28c1.asp

P.S. You would get a much different answer to your question on the FB. May I cross-post?

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

It's because he believes that, after people are tortured for awhile, they start believing in the free market.




eta: Relax, oh literal one. It's a joke.

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

Literal guy -- Sidd means Sidd's post is a joke. Sidd does not mean that club's post is a joke.

What do Deer eat?
 

You can cross post - that is fine. I just don't read the Fashion Board because I never can figure out what people are saying.

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

Its funny you said that because when I first read it I thought he was being sarcastic. I think it is going to take me a while to get the personalities down. You guys have many years on me.

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

I'm starting to regard you kind of how I regard the new kitten, who actually thinks there's another cat around when he sees himself in the mirror.

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

It's because I am practical and recognize that we are in a time of war and in a time of war bad shit happens on both sides. It is also because I think self defication, while unpleasant, is not the end of the world.

All this is not to say that I think the POWs should be held indefinitely without process. I'm just not sure what that process should be.

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

Good one.

Does the Holocaust Rule Apply
 

So you are OK with people getting kidnapped and executed? And wouldn't really have a problem with (relatively) random Americans being picked up and held in similar conditions in, like, Syria?

ETA you've had, what, 3 years now to think about what should be done. Does this wait indefinitely until you decide on a process? Haven't a bunch of courts said it's not legal?