Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The bombings in Spain and the bombings today were committed with standard explosives. A week ago I walked on the DC subway at rush hour with a carry on suitcase. It could have contained explosives. The Iraq war (putting aside it's ultimate value) was never intended to stop the presence of standard explosives.

The web site pronouncement included Afghanistan as justification, not just Iraq. So Iraq wasn't intended to stop this sort nor does it appear to have been the sole motivation. In fact, I believe Scotland Yard has broken up several imminent attacks over the past few years. Some sounded like they would have been very very horrific- worse that today if that matters. Some of this thrawted attacks were pre-Iraq invasion.

To claim Iraq was wrong because of today, is to claim that the only response to any of this is to hope it stops.

Remember, in Spain AFTER the announcement of withdraw from Iraq, they found more bombs on train tracks.

The situation is fucked. It is the situation we are in.

The impression I got from listening to a Scotland Yard press conference is that they knew this would happen sooner or later and they've thrwarted a few attempts already.

The Brits on the radio seem pissed off, but they're not necessarily in a state of shock.

This would have happened if we'd gone into Iraq or if we hadn't gone into Iraq. If we hadn't gone into Iraq, they would have listed some other perceived slight as justification. (Doesn't mean that I think we should have gone into Iraq.)

Houston's mass transit system is freeway oriented. I don't think it'd be too difficult to put a few explosives under the Pierce Elevated at rush hour. I think we'd be in a state of shock.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mister_Ruysbroeck
Most pensions came about, I believe, because the unions realized their members couldn't or wouldn't save for retirement, so they forced the companies to do it for them. The trade off was lower up-front salaries for the employees.

The transition to 401(k)s has come about b/c the companies got sick of funding the pension plans and have found that people will, indeed, save money if they are given enough incentive.

And regarding the retirement age thing, it seems you don't understand how pensions work. Being vested after 25 years of service doesn't mean you can start drawing after that time. Most plans have a minimum retirement age before you can get your money out.

1. Business should not play nanny. Sets a bad precedent/expectation.

2. It should all be IRAs. Do it yourself. Think of the admin costs saved.

3. Ain't high enough. See previous examples offered in thread.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I assume you mean this as a joke, but I'm really not in the right frame of mind.

Iraq was intended to stop/lessen the possibilty that the bombs today would have been something other than standard explosives.

To stop things like happened today requires identifying and stopping people moled into our country and our allies countries. Britian does not play with this shit. I expect you'll see some big changes over the next few months there re. how fundamentalist can preach hate. I expect you will see big arrests.

Fuck arrests. Start assassinating or deporting every asshole who preaches jihad. In USSR, the anti terrorism squads used to retaliate by kidnapping the terrorists' families and then negotiating with the terrorists. Fight fire with fire. In Syria, Assad bulldozed and murdered an entire neighborhood of fundamentalists who started yammering about Jihad. They didn't do it again. I know we can't do that, but there are soft ways to do it.

Cat who sells me Persian rugs is from Iran and travels through middle east a lot. He said the only thing the Arab world understands is a gun or a knife, FWTW... From what I see, I have not reason to doubt him.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I assume you mean this as a joke, but I'm really not in the right frame of mind.

Iraq was intended to stop/lessen the possibilty that the bombs today would have been something other than standard explosives.

To stop things like happened today requires identifying and stopping people moled into our country and our allies countries. Britian does not play with this shit. I expect you'll see some big changes over the next few months there re. how fundamentalist can preach hate. I expect you will see big arrests.

No, I don't mean that as a joke. What you're saying now is that all the reasons given by W as justification for war are a joke. Ha, ha.

What you seem to be saying is what's needed for fighting the war on terror is close cooperation with our allies (Syria, for example, used to help us quite a bit with AQ. Not so much now that we've threatened to invade them.). You mocked Kerry for saying the same thing.

[dtb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
In USSR, the anti terrorism squads used to retaliate by kidnapping the terrorists' families and then negotiating with the terrorists.

The difficulty here is that the sort of people who would do these acts wouldn't care if someone were to harm their families. In fact, I remember reading an article where a Palestinian woman bragged about the inevitable defeat of the "West" (or whatever "enemy du jour" was the subject of discussion) owing to the larger number of sons that Arabs have to sacrifice for the cause. I imagine having a family harmed by infidels would be a badge of honor, or some such twisted thing.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The bombings in Spain and the bombings today were committed with standard explosives. A week ago I walked on the DC subway at rush hour with a carry on suitcase. It could have contained explosives. The Iraq war (putting aside it's ultimate value) was never intended to stop the presence of standard explosives.

The web site pronouncement included Afghanistan as justification, not just Iraq. So Iraq wasn't intended to stop this sort nor does it appear to have been the sole motivation. In fact, I believe Scotland Yard has broken up several imminent attacks over the past few years. Some sounded like they would have been very very horrific- worse that today if that matters. Some of these thrawted attacks were pre-Iraq invasion.

To claim Iraq was wrong because of today, is to claim that the only response to any of this is to hope it stops.

Remember, in Spain AFTER the announcement of withdraw from Iraq, they found more bombs on train tracks.

The situation is fucked. It is the situation we are in.

I walk through Grand Central Station every day and it is absolutely amazing to me that someone hasn't bombed it yet. It would be the simplest thing in the world. The situation is well and truly fucked.

What I said was I would have a hard time telling anyone in London that the war in Iraq has made anyone safer from any kind of terrorist attack. I think maybe we agree that it can't stop this kind of attack, but that's not the message I've been hearing from the administration and its backers. The message I've been hearing is that, now that we know there were no WMDs there to begin with, the war in Iraq makes it less likely that there will be any kind of attack because we have removed a regime that was giving aid and comfort to Al Quaeda and disrupted their ability to plan and execute attacks. If that is no longer one of the rationales for our invasion and continued presence there I'd like to hear GWB say it.

And fuck those Scotland Yard pussies and traitors who disrupted other potential attacks - replying to terrorism with indictments, arrests and other police action is for Neville Chamberlain types, right?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
That ain't just the military. I have a family friend doing that now. Totally able to work, but happily sitting out his late 50s laughing his ass off. God bless him. I mean, really... he worked it. But something seems wrong about it.

So, you'd prefer he keep working in his bloated middle-management position? What's wrong about it? he saved, through a pension, and now is enjoying that choice.

[Mister_Ruysbroeck]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
1. Business should not play nanny. Sets a bad precedent/expectation.

2. It should all be IRAs. Do it yourself. Think of the admin costs saved.

3. Ain't high enough. See previous examples offered in thread.

1. It wasn't the businesses, it was the unions. This all started happening when the unions were in their prime. You act like the companies could actually bargain back then. Now that the power of the unions is waning, most companies are scaling back their pensions.

2. Admin costs saved? What costs more - paying hundreds of thousands of stock brokers a cut of your portfolio to interface with traders or paying base salaries to the few thousand people who are employed in the administration of institutional pension plans? Economies of scale, my friend. Adminstration costs per participant go down drastically as the number of people in the plan goes up. It costs me significantly less in admin fees to invest in my 401(k) than it would if I did it on my own through an IRA.

3. Huge assumption from someone who clearly doesn't know jack shit about pension plans.

Anyway, stop trying to justify your own choices by trying to make other people's retirement planning seem "crazy" (especially considering you seem to know very little about what you're demeaning). The fact is 401(k)s are probably the best retirement savings mechanism ever invented.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Most of the people who took chances in 20-40s don't find themselves relying on pensions. A lot of people hit a point where they realize they have to work for themselves to make as much as they want.

You are talking people making a fair amount of money, right? Because in terms of sheer numbers, a lot of people go take chances, lose everything, and slink back home to work at the packing plant/factory/WalMart.

IRA admin costs are much higher than the group rates companies can get. For example, buying an individual annuity for a benefit with a $37k present-value costs nearly $50k, but if a company were buying tons of them, it'd be more like $38k. IBM dumped their defined benefit plans (OK, froze them) and is doing defined contribution only, but is giving people an option of buying an annuity through the company, at the company's rates, when they retire -- so that they don't get raped by the insurance companies.

Why do you want people to work until they are 65 or older, Sebby? I'm more in favor of denying extraordinary health care to them.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Mister_Ruysbroeck

The transition to 401(k)s has come about b/c the companies got sick of funding the pension plans and have found that people will, indeed, save money if they are given enough incentive.

In my experience working with a lot of rank and file employees in a lot of plants is that this statement is incorrect. Employees do not like making decisions about their money - whether it be where to invest it or even to have to make the decision to invest it at all. Even when the Company is willing to match a percentage, the majority of employees will not take advantage of the free money.

aV

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The bombings in Spain and the bombings today were committed with standard explosives. A week ago I walked on the DC subway at rush hour with a carry on suitcase. It could have contained explosives. The Iraq war (putting aside it's ultimate value) was never intended to stop the presence of standard explosives.

The web site pronouncement included Afghanistan as justification, not just Iraq. So Iraq wasn't intended to stop this sort nor does it appear to have been the sole motivation. In fact, I believe Scotland Yard has broken up several imminent attacks over the past few years. Some sounded like they would have been very very horrific- worse that today if that matters. Some of these thrawted attacks were pre-Iraq invasion.

To claim Iraq was wrong because of today, is to claim that the only response to any of this is to hope it stops.

Remember, in Spain AFTER the announcement of withdraw from Iraq, they found more bombs on train tracks.

The situation is fucked. It is the situation we are in.

And thus, the Flypaper theory is replaced by the Bob Geldof theory of the War on Terror.


We must do something. Even if it doesn't work.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
1. Business should not play nanny. Sets a bad precedent/expectation.

2. It should all be IRAs. Do it yourself. Think of the admin costs saved.

3. Ain't high enough. See previous examples offered in thread.

1. Businesses have an incentive to create pension plans, too. It means that workers won't hang on forever, but rather will realize that retirement is just as attractive as continuing to work. Avoids firings and dead wood--like your friend.

2. IRAs have admin costs as well. And having a 401k addresses the concern in 1. Forced savings also benefits the employer.

3. Tell it to a coal miner or steel worker, who'll probably die at 72 anyway. A one-size-fits-all retirement age, when there's a sharp division between white collar and blue collar labor, isn't without its problems.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by dtb
The difficulty here is that the sort of people who would do these acts wouldn't care if someone were to harm their families. In fact, I remember reading an article where a Palestinian woman bragged about the inevitable defeat of the "West" (or whatever "enemy du jour" was the subject of discussion) owing to the larger number of sons that Arabs have to sacrifice for the cause. I imagine having a family harmed by infidels would be a badge of honor, or some such twisted thing.

True. You can't fight an enemy willing to die. So we just have to manage them until they get squeezed into the 20th century by India and China on one side and us on the other. The problem is, its like squeezing a blind pimple. When we tighten that vice, all the grease is going to ooze into Europe and Africa.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Mister_Ruysbroeck
Anyway, stop trying to justify your own choices by trying to make other people's retirement planning seem "crazy" (especially considering you seem to know very little about what you're demeaning). The fact is 401(k)s are probably the best retirement savings mechanism ever invented.

Come on, MR, can't you handle the foul truths that are mostly correct? Sebby's got it all figured out--work hard at a shite job, live for the now, and pull out the 'coon gun around age 64, when your supply of Maker's Mark is gone. 401ks are for losers who want to keep living after all the fun is gone.

[Mister_Ruysbroeck]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You are talking people making a fair amount of money, right? Because in terms of sheer numbers, a lot of people go take chances, lose everything, and slink back home to work at the packing plant/factory/WalMart.

IRA admin costs are much higher than the group rates companies can get. For example, buying an individual annuity for a benefit with a $37k present-value costs nearly $50k, but if a company were buying tons of them, it'd be more like $38k. IBM dumped their defined benefit plans (OK, froze them) and is doing defined contribution only, but is giving people an option of buying an annuity through the company, at the company's rates, when they retire -- so that they don't get raped by the insurance companies.

Why do you want people to work until they are 65 or older, Sebby? I'm more in favor of denying extraordinary health care to them.

Don't start throwing around "defined benefit" and "defined contribution." Sebby will get confused.