whatthe?,

Your non-understanding of investing is epic!

No, I would NOT just turn my $$$ over to speculators to gamble with.

I WOULD intelligently invest my $$$ based on a combination of my own research, input from those who work on Wall St. etc.

As an example, it would be spread around (ie diversification) various investments such as stocks, cash, bonds, etc. In fact, it may very well be spread using indexes! Imagine that!

To your dismay, the American citizens are quite capable of doing this AND all the proposals I have read on this matter DO, in fact, have the owner directing the investment ---- NOT just handed off to a Wall St. type.

Note that it is not that hard to make money this way. The error comes when people try to believe they can out-think, or out-maneuver, the market. Again, the stuff I have read puts limits on the investment types and the amount of “trading” that can occur.

Finally, let’s remember that SS is, as it stands, a horrible investment for anyone under the age of about 60 or so. Pretending that a crap investment is actually protected form inflation is simply insane.

channelsurfer:

You would want to turn money you put aside for your future over to the stock market for speculators to gamble with? The very same speculators that gave us the Great Recession of 2008 and needed trillions of your tax payer money to keep them afloat? You mean THOSE intelligent people?

U.S. citizens wouldn't be managing their own privatized SS accounts, Wall Street would be. That's where the problem lies. You really need to think what the economic landscape of our country would be right now if W. Bush had managed to privatize SS before he left office. That alone stands as a cautionary tale to anyone who worships at the alter of the private sector.

The government doesn't gamble with the SS funds, never has. They have looted it, using the overages to fund other debt obligations. In other words, borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. The government will have to start paying Peter back in 2038. That's 28 years from now. There definitely is a long-term problem with SS, but not a crisis.

Yes, privatizing would allow for unused funds to be inherited, that's a plus. If there were any unused funds left. Here are some things that will be working against that:

* Privatization would link ultimate payouts to stock market or bond market fluctuations. Individuals would have no control over this. Another inflated bubble bursts, you're wiped out.

*Private accounts would not be protected from inflation like SS payouts now are.

*Privatization would be a windfall for Wall Street financial institutions, who would obtain significant fees for managing private accounts. You'll have to pay these fees whether you want to or not.

It's very possible that if your money is invested carelessly (over which you have no control), drained by significant "managing fees" (over which you have no control), and then erodes over time with inflation (over which you have no control), you could be left with very little, much less anything to pass on in an inheritance.

FDR warned of the "Tory's" who saw SS as a cash cow and wanted access to it's funds when it was first established, which is why he insisted SS had to stay in government hands. Those Tory's still exist today, and they still want access. The government looting SS would pale in comparison to the damage Wall Street could do; they have the means to completely destroy it, just like they did with their own institutions. How many Great Depressions and Great Recessions do we have to experience before we learn this lesson?

The worst gambling scheme there is for socail security is habding the money to the U.S. government for investing!
\
What a complete joke that is, and anyone (you reading this, What The?) who believes in it is somewhere between naive and just plain stupid.

Young folks know that it will not be there when they hit retirement, and they also know that they will be hit the hardest IF the idiots in Congress try to solve the shortcomings with taxes. Without immediate changes to COLA, retirement ages, etc., we are just breaking the backs of the future wage earners.

The concept of privatizing a portion of SS is long past it's due date. Besies the obvious, which is thatthe U.S. government has done what would amount to as an illegal ponzi scheme if it was the private sector concerning SS., the private accounts would create REAL wealth and TRUE familial value going foward.
There would be actual value for folks to pass on (via will, etc) once dead, as opposed to SS where there is no such concept as "asset value).

Of course, the nutcase progressive left like What The> is against ANYTHING that puts the power of decision back into the hands of the intelligent citizens of our country..

Glock:

Relax. I said I was ok with other alternatives to funding SS, depends on what those alternatives are, as long as it's not handed over to Wall street (privatized). Then they'll be able to hold the retirement accts of all Americans hostage to get their next bailouts. Anyone with a ounce of common sense can see that scenario coming down Rte. 59 like a Mack truck.

And when did you read either of Obama's books? That's a new one, didn't you say a while ago you didn't need to waste your time reading about Obama to know a Marxist when you saw one? Isn't the truth really that you call Obama a Marxist because the right-wing media does and has been since the day he was elected? "Because Limbaugh says so" has always been all the info you've ever needed. If you've actually started READING your own material, I would be beyond impressed.

I'm not going to get in a lengthy argument about SS that will go nowhere. The reality is the only SS crisis we have is a crisis of fear about it. The program has enough coming in to meet it's obligations until--what--2038 or something?--and after that it will have enough coming in to meet 3/4's of it's obligations. So there is no SS crisis right now, it's doing fine.

The only people who are making SS a crisis are the Republicans who are lobbying for the private sector capitalists who have been trying to get their hands on the social security funds since it's inception. FDR warned about the "Tory's" wanting access to these funds since SS was established.

What always amazes me about you "all things government are evil" types is how mean and small in spirit you sound. It kills you that anyone might get something for free that you didn't. Even people like Tea Party candidate Joe Miller, who now blasts government unemployment insurance and Medicaid, received aid from those exact same programs when his family was in a position where they needed some help. And now he begrudges his other fellow Alaskans from having that help available to them if they need it? A person can't get any smaller than that.

And it also amazes me how much you resent individual welfare, a person receiving a warm room or a meal on the taxpayer's dime, but you are completely OK with welfare to the private sector. Farm subsidies?--no problem! Turn over the Federal student aid program to the banks, like W. did, so they can skim off billions a year of taxpayer money doing the paperwork that the government was perfectly fine doing itself, in addition to collecting interest on loaned taxpayer money while the taxpayer picked up the cost of all defaults--no problem! Free taxpayer money for the private sector! But allow a person to have an illness treated through Medicaid--hell no! I seriously don't get it; never will.

One thing that will be fun, tho--the next two years. Newly elected Reps already have state budgets on the butcher block. It will be amusing to watch the very people who voted them in lose their government jobs, extended unemployment benefits, Medicaid, have their pensions reduced, etc. etc. Not that this probably doesn't need to be done, we all know government is bloated and pension costs are unsustainable. But to increase unemployment during a recession, when there are still multiple applicants for every available job, and then restrict unemployment benefits, and then restrict welfare and end Medicaid when that's all they have left, well, all I can say is elections have consequences. So does stupidity. But it's going to be entertaining to watch!

I find it very ironic that the main person trying to push pension reform w/in the City of Naperville is councilman Tricky "Dick" Furstenau. This little Napoleon has no problem collectiing his pension though.....DICK....YOU COST THE TAX PAYERS 1.5 MILLION DOLLARS WITH YOU SILLY LAWSUIT...(Had to get that in).

I know what Bernie Sanders is. And Obama is a Marxist. Read his book about him and his inner circle of associates and those he admires. So I know that too. I am not OK with your other sources of funding SS with MY 401K and balanced pension fund being nationalized and held by the government. As you know, I do not consider ANY government a good benefactor of the public interest. Converting private 401K and pensions to government control is what Sanders and Harkins are talking about. And they are talking about this because they do not want to fund SS, they want to fund government pension and the Pension Benefit Guarantee Fund which is like all other government departments, broke because of excessive spending. And the big special interests who want to do this are unions, whose pensions are severly underfunded for future obligations. You need to bone up on this issue. You may be OK with your retirement accounts be taken over and managed by the G while I am not.

Today the Sun has an article reporting we now have a second sister city, some beautiful place in Mexico I am sure. There will be a flag raising ceremony with refreshments and entertainment at the Hall next week with local community leaders, dignitaries and other movers and shakers present. While we have $3.5 MIL for the DCM purchase, Krieger complains the city has no money for the 3% raise awarded to policemen but we have no one telling us about the costs associated with this sister city silliness. How about it Naperville Sun? Another potentially fertile ground for an enterprising journalist. Expose the sister city program. Who is behind it? What is it supposed to accomplish? Why? How much does it cost and what is the benefit? Is there a story here? Also, a thread on the Second City Cop blog about Naperville Police pay raise entiteled "Nice Arbitration Award".

The new police contract mentions 3% or so raises. Is this the increase in base pay or does it include a step? If it does not include steps, what are the steps on the contract? Are there any lanes (other than actual change in position/responsibility)?

This goes back to the City Council wanting to reform pensions, yet doing nothing to try to control payroll which leads to the pension obligation.

story

-1

Glock:

Bernie Sanders of Vermont is a self-proclaimed socialist. Thought you should know. Does that change what you think of his social security solution?

As long as SS funds are not turned over to Wall Street to invest, which would turn into another gambling scheme where investors keep the majority of the profits and the U.S. government (we the people) fund their losses, I would probably be ok with other alternatives to the current SS funding method.

This question about what to do with pensions already apprently as a solution. Democrats Bernie Sanders and Tom Harkins are investigating with thier genious a plan to convert all privately held 401Ks and pension funds into a single government retirement account. The government would nationalize these funds from you and set up an account in your name, The concept is similar to the lock box idea that Professor Gore came up for Social Sercurity. These formerly private held by you funds would be invested in government bonds and you would receive from the government a guaranteed 3% return with adjustments for inflation. You would have access to the money according to whatever government rules are in place at the time. If you die prior to collecting the benefits, you heirs would retain half of the remianing account in government hands and the government keeps the other half in its hands to continue funding of the program. In favoring this method, we would then fund pensions (estimated to be approximately 62% of proper funding levels now and dropping) thereby eliminating the rising pension crisis, mostly driven by government employee unions. Secondly, we will take the pressure off the federal pension guarantee program near a state of collapse and finally, we will make the playing field more fair so that some people do not retire with too much money while others have no money. It is the perfect solution and one that originated in a very prestegious university and is gaining traction in the halls of government. In fact, the SEIU is all over this like stink on you know what. This is the solution to their mismanagment of their members pension program, in part devalued because of hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign money to the DNC. Pension problem solved. Sound like the Frank/Dodd solution to unaffordable housing and the creation of Fannie and Freedie Mac daddy?

Public pensions haven't been reformed at all, just lowered a tiny bit. Why have pensions for public workers when most private sector workers have no pensions at all these days?

"Just another bully with his boot on someone's neck". Exactly what I think of politicians, especially Obama What the ?. He is the leader of the bullies. When I vote Tuesday, it will be for Conservatives not because I like the candidates but because I want to say F Y to the Liberals who seem to think big government spending money recklessly is a good thing. I actually heard Quinn on the radio today proclaiming he solved the pension crisis by borrowing more money to pay the pension debt and will increase income taxes 33% as another part of "his" solution equation. Oh, we also need the increase to support education. As if we do not already spend too much money on education. Absolutely incredible is what he did not say is new employees are going to be working under different pension rules and under his administration, there will be reductions in government spending. Quinn is merely another in a legion of people with poor leadership qualities who will be out looking for jobs Wednesday. Lots of laughs, I can hardly wait.

channelsurfer:

I don't see where anyone on this thread has said O'Reilly is a Republican. Everyone has referred to him as a conservative, which is how O'Reilly refers to himself. I have never heard O'Reilly state his political affiliation. Has he ever explicitly said he is NOT a Republican?

Glenn Beck has specifically stated he is a conservative but NOT a Republican. Has O'Reilly? If not, he could be, but I don't see why it would make any difference.

Let me enlighten you:

O'Reilly regulalry describes himself as conservative, but NOT a Republican.

Anon ONE:

Ok, I'll check out the editorial page now that Mad Men had it's season finale last week (sigh).

If you watched Jon Stewart more than just once or twice, you'd know his slant, he doesn't hide it. He definitely leans liberal, but not exclusively. Like comedians often do, he will take his material from wherever he can find it. He'll blast the Reps one week and be merciless with Obama the next. One of his favorite targets is Fox News, he does not care for them at all. But he's not as one-sided as you think, you just haven't had enough exposure.

To me O'Reilly is definitely right, tho not extreme. Just conservative. But like JQP said, O'Reilly states that he is middle of the road, which he obviously isn't; even you have noticed that.

I used to watch O'Reilly quite a bit but I got tired of him bullying his guests. Bill has a HUGE ego, and whenever a guest starts to get the better of him on his show, he becomes a bully, poking his finger in their faces, yelling at them, being physically and verbally threatening. It's not a pretty sight watching O'Reilly lose it, and I thought less of him every time it happened, so eventually I just stopped watching altogether. Just another bully with his boot on someone's neck. Yuck.

Stewart, OTOH, is self-deprecating and doesn't take himself seriously at all. Recently the two did each other's shows--Stewart was a guest on O'Reilly and vice versa. Their two completely different styles couldn't have been more apparent. If I can get through the WSJ editorials, you should be able to get through a few more Jon Stewart shows. A deal's a deal!

Now I gotta jump to another thread. Glock is on the Protest Planned thread going off on an anonymous blogger he thinks is me. Poor guy has really gone off his nut over this Juan Williams thing. Someone had better stop him before he hurts himself.

Later!

I don't know if Jon Stewart has ever stood up on a chair and declared "I am a liberal", or, "I am left of center", but he's usually identified as such, and I've never heard him object to the label.

Wat ever, Dutch! It beeeee obnoxious.

JQP wrote that : "Bill O'Reilly, OTOH, likes to pretend that he occupies the middle ground."
-------------------------------
O'Reilly's not in the middle?? I think that's one of the disagreements between conservative and liberal minded people. Both groups claim middle ground so they can brand the other as extreme. I do think Jon Stewart can be funny, I obviously disagree with his political slant. I don't watch him enough to render a comment on where he describes himself. Does Stewart claim to be something other than in the middle? btw, I don't view O'Reilly as a middle ground guy, even if he claims to be, he is definately right wing, conservative, but so am I.

WT?: I haven't watched Mad Men but hear good things about it. I think Jon Stewart is very funny, but think he tries too hard to cast certain people in a bad light. I would say that's a common thing - particularly in election season. Glad you're perusing the WSJ, don't forget about the editorial page!!!

Anon ONE wrote:

If Stewart is just an entertainer then I would brand him as an entertainer, albeit with a distinct political slant, no?

No question about that---but then, I don't think Jon Stewart makes any secret of that, either. Bill O'Reilly, OTOH, likes to pretend that he occupies the middle ground.

Anon ONE:

Forgot: remember a while ago I promised to give the WSJ more time in exchange for you watching the Daily Show? Well, I'm a fan of the AMC series Mad Men, and the WSJ runs a column where various contributors discuss that week's Mad Men episode, make predictions on various characters, etc. Got totally hooked on it. I know that's not what you were hoping for, but hey, it's a start!

Wat up, wt?

It beee a Dutch accccent, maaam!

Anon ONE:

I don't believe I have ever cited Jon Stewart either. Citing someone is like quoting them, the definition of cite is "to quote by way of example, authority, or proof." I've cited comments of others on this blog from time to time, but Stewart hasn't been one of them. He is a COMEDIAN. He does political comedy, but he is still an entertainer and does not describe himself as anything else. O'Reilly, on the other hand, takes himself very seriously and considers himself a political commentator. Many commentators on Fox consider themselves authorities; certainly not Stewart.You may consider O"Reilly and Stewart on the same plane, but I don't, and I really doubt they do, either.

I have provided links on occasion to a particular Stewart routine that I found especially funny. I once linked his"Go "F" Yourself Musical Extravaganza" by way of a reply to an obnoxious blogger. That's the closest I've ever come to "citing" Stewart, if you want to count that. But if you can find any post where I have cited something Stewart said to make a point, using Stewart as some kind of authority--NOT by way of poking fun at something--I'd like to see it, because I don't believe it exists. Recommending his show, like I have to you, isn't citing either. That would be promoting.

And I've mentioned Limbaugh 5 times on this thread and others 3 times, so I'm 2 ahead. So what? Many bloggers here repeat Limbaugh's comments without referencing him as their source and I'm the one who brings this to light. That would certainly result in my using Limbaugh's name more, but I don't see how this is a problem. Limbaugh is an entertainer (though not a comedian) and yet bloggers here repeat his comments as if he were an authority. They take him SERIOUSLY, like Glock does a lot. Limbaugh is not an authority on anything, he's factually incorrect a lot. But who cares, his job is to be entertaining, not correct. The problem arises when entertainers are considered authorities, then misinformation runs amok. This also results in a definite lack of original thought in the current discourse. And I just mentioned Limbaugh's name 5 more times, so now I'm 10-3.

And now it looks like I'm also an anti-Semite, because I used the "J" word (gasp!). What else would you call someone of Jewish ancestry? See? It's definitely not cool to go there for any reason. Someone should have warned Sanchez.

Dutch Uncle: Please stop torturing us with the awful attempt at a German accent; it's painful to read. You sound more like one of dat Jamaicans wit all dis stuff, mon.

Glockster:

Hosted a KILLER Halloween party this past weekend. What is it, Tuesday? I'm not going near anything with alcohol for awhile. Take Mom to Houlihan's.

I think a big diff between libs and conservatives in the media is libs don't sweat the small stuff. You guys tend to get your shorts in a wad easily, blow things way out of proportion and keep the adrenaline going for days, like with the Juan Williams episode. The rest of us go on with our lives.

Let's shelve the outrage and put this in perspective. Yes, Juan has been a well-respected figure with NPR for years. He also doubled as a Fox News contributor. He is not a reject, but he has been rejected by the mainstream media for comments that NPR considered biased and inflammatory. It is NPR's right to fire him, just like it was CNN's right to fire Sanchez for making comments that they considered biased and inflammatory. Neither Juan nor Sanchez have any recourse against their employers, undoubtedly both had clauses of this nature written into their contracts. They breach their contracts, they can be fired at the discretion of management. Isn't this how a free private sector is suppose to work? And Fox had the right to scoop him up, which they did, for a tidy 2 mil. Now Juan can make all the biased, inflammatory and politically incorrect statements he wants, as Fox does not have a problem with this like NPR did. All's well that ends well. So what's your problem?

And I hear a hint of misogyny in your statements. "That is what happens when you promote incompetent women into positions they do not have the psychologial composition for but because your organization like NPR is politically correct rather than talent conscious." Seriously? This coming from someone who thinks a woman who bailed on a tough governorship is now fit for the Presidency? Like men have never fired men over the phone? And of course Juan's firing "probably" is a George Soros-driven conspiracy to boot? I'm gonna start calling you butter 'cause you're on a crazy roll.

Glad to help with the vocabulary. Fungible (adj): being of such a nature that one part or quantity may be replaced by another equal part or quantity in the satisfaction of an obligation, for example: oil, wheat and lumber are fungible commodities. So is cash.

And you haven't heard of the Chamber of Commerce controversy? Why am I not surprised.

anon-one---

I tooked her last para on Sancheeez, etc. to be inferring some type of da power base with "jews".

Dat is all.

[whatthe? posted "His mistake was that he bad-mouthed Jews. It's ok right now to disparage Hispanics, because of illegal immigration, and Muslims, because of 9/11, but one can't knock Jews and get away with it. If he had offended Jews on Fox News, maybe Rupert would have given him a job when he got fired from CNN, unless Rupert is Jewish. "]

JQP. Can't disagree, but we sometimes see Stewart used to rebut something a conservative politician or "newstype" (O'Reilly) say or do. So while Stewart claims to be an entertainer he sure does participate a lot in conservative bashing and commentary. I view O'Reilly as a political commentator, so whether it's a semantics issue or not, I view both of them on the same plane - and typically on opposing viewpoints.

If Stewart is just an entertainer then I would brand him as an entertainer, albeit with a distinct political slant, no?

Anonymous ONE wrote:

You mention Stewart and I'll mention O'reilly.

One HUGE difference between Stewart and O'Reilly: Jon Stewart makes no secret of the fact that he is, first and foremost, an entertainer.

what the? | October 18, 2010 3:51 PM

WT?, not as much time to peruse potluck, but wanted to get back to you. I didn't mean to imply you copy the Jon Stewart show, or try to use it as your own, just that you seem to cite him frequently (just my opinion). If you are out front of many stories on Huffington and Jon Stewart then kudos to you. Your real name isn't "Stassinopoulos" is it???

I originally posted after you made a claim about conservative commentators being cited here. You wrote:

"I'm surprised it took that long to appear on this blog, generally statements by O'Reilly, Beck, Limbaugh and the like get repeated here within 24-48 hours, tops."

I did a simple search on this potluck topic "(Pension question on the ballot)" and found that you were in fact the first one to mention Limbaugh. You go on to mention him 5 total times (out of 44 current postings) while three others mention him only once.

Hardly a scientific or valid result I know, but IMMHCO (In my most humble conservative opinion (is that even a real acronym?)) it seems that you, more than anyone, cite Limbaugh et. al. and use people like Stewart to make your point. Not exclusively, but with regularity. You must know that me and my "ilk" view Stewart, Huffington, NPR, MSNBC, etc. just as harshly as you view Limbaugh?

As you know I'm a big fan of citing your sources, and backing up claims. So it may seem disingenuous to criticize you for citing your sources just because I disagree with them. I'm simply saying as I always have said, our discussion is circuitous. You mention Stewart and I'll mention O'reilly. You mention Huffington and I'll mention Drudge. You mention Fox and I'll bring up MSNBC. As the resident liberal I know your inclination is to now respond with accusations about Fox and their claim to be news, and that you believe it is all a sham, orchestrated political commentary.
------
Dutch Uncle: I tend to disagree with WT? on a frequent basis, but have never detected anything "anti semite". Let's see some proof of that one! I've never seen it.

Ya, dere is da wt? we all der know!

She be not influenced by all der e-bundance of liberal social engineeeers, no der, not she. Only she be immune to all dat crapola.

Den, she continues der issued talking points of der progressive masters of hers, ya? No proof, but der she be talking about de foreign monies, ya. Hey, babeee! How about dat der union money collected from der foreign masters honee? And dat Soros moneee dat was contngeeent on flushing out all views not Soros?

Oh, and let me not forget der anti-semite drivel she still spews!

I do not know what Ruppert Murdock IS other than a human being I believe from Austrailia. I do know he supported the idiot Obama as opposed to Roger Ailes, his FOX NEWS boss who did not and which was the source of consternation between the two. But to not care about Juan Williams is your bag baby. He is not a reject. The fact is he was a respected news person at National Peoples Radio for ten years he was censored and fired by Schiller and Weiss most likely on orders from their boss, George Soros, the fugitive financier fat cat responsible for the monetary failure of several small nations in the world should be a wake up call to reality for you libs. Two women who are cowards, They fired him over the phone. That is what happens when you promote incompetent women into positions they do not have the psychologial composition for but because your organization like NPR is politically correct rather than talent conscious. I heard Schillers comments at the Atlanta Press Club Lunch and they were extraordinarily ignorant. Obviously a closed, narrow minded woman. My own lib mother while at Traverso's for dinner last night exhibits the same Schiller, Weiss, What the ? affliction.. She actually did the hand wave brush off for the Williams firing. So what she proclaimed. Then she claimed when I objected to tax money going to fund Peoples Radio, it is a small amount of money she argued. I believe it to be 1/2 billion $ to CPC and she refused to talk about the subject anymore. She likes her NPR and especially Public Television. Go watch Barney and Tele Tubbys mom. Two more Public Television rip offs of taxpayer money. Closed lib minds always cannot deal with reality. They are fixed on what the world should be. But it is terrilbly inconsistent when NPR fires Williams for not being in their so called corporate guidelines for commentators and yet continue to employ unbalanced commentators such as Nina Tottenberg or another usefull idiot named Travis Smiley. Now I have to go and figure out a way to get some of Juans fungible parachute money. The American Chamber of Commerece? Come on, lets have some martinis. I bet I can get you to go crazy right at the Houlihans bar. I'll buy with my own fungible money. I love that, where do you come up with that? Fungible. That will be my word of the day. Fungible Fungible Fungible. What the F?

Glockster:

Better not let Glenn Beck hear you demanding social justice; he'll kick you out of his fan club.

I said the special interests are yanking your chain, Glock, through the media and commentators who support their interests--Limbaugh, Fox News, ad nauseum. And through the American Chamber of Commerce, countries such as Saudia Arabia, Dubai and China also, to name a few. The point is you CAN'T follow the money for now as the funding sources are kept confidential. But much of it does come from these and other foreign countries, that much we do know, as the Chamber of Commerce has branches in these countries and solicits and receives foreign donations. We're just not allowed to know from whom and how much. And money is fungible, as I've been told many times on this blog, so you connect the dots. The fact that foreign money is probably making its way into our electoral process is of concern to me. Funny how this is not a concern to real Americans such as yourself. But you probably have no idea what I'm talking about, because Limbaugh and Fox News don't talk about these kinds of things.

I don't care about Juan Williams. I've never listened to NPR. The only time I saw Williams was when he was on Fox News anyway. As soon as I heard he had been fired, I knew Fox would give him a home as they've given jobs to many mainstream media rejects. And OF COURSE you're rallying on the Fox News website to support Juan, given how you're not into group think and you're such an independent thinker and all. Let's see, you sound like an average middle class guy whose lived in the same town for decades, you don't like it anymore but for some reason won't leave--maybe you can't afford to?-- and you're going online to show your support for someone who just got a $2 million parachute and is doing just fine? I don't think your support is going to get you a piece of Juan's $2 mil, but I'm sure Juan would go online to support you if you ever got fired, right? Dude, you really need to get a life.

Hey, there's an idea! Put your big mouth to work for you! Go out and say something outrageous in support of Fox News, take the fall out, then go ask them for a job! They'll surely take you into the fold.

I wonder how Rick Sanchez is doing in light of all this. His mistake was that he bad-mouthed Jews. It's ok right now to disparage Hispanics, because of illegal immigration, and Muslims, because of 9/11, but one can't knock Jews and get away with it. If he had offended Jews on Fox News, maybe Rupert would have given him a job when he got fired from CNN, unless Rupert is Jewish. Sanchez really screwed himself with that one.

What the ? (its really me, Glock a big Juan Williams fan even though I seldom agree with him) Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party, Republicans, Democrats do not tell me what to think or shape my views. I'm into individual liberty not group think. I am my own big fat mouthpiece, well not as fat but big. My upbringing and life experiences determine what I think. By the time I attended University, I was already headed out of the group. And I think the treatment of Juan Williams by the government teet sucking NPR and in particular Schiller and Weiss (All Things Inconsiderate) despicable and gender and racially motivated. Notice on the Fox News website we conservatives rallying to support Juan. Most of us are very happy FOX extended his contract and we will see more of him as we get our special interest news. Wonder where your racial biggoted special interest leaders Jackson and Sharpton are? What do you think the reason is they are not out leading the conservative viewpoint for a change? Lets us indeed follow the money. If only the local government can find a way to rid itself of the DCM obligations, the bell tower and the federal government can rid itself of the 1/2 billion $ of our tax money to NPR, we will start on the correct path of reigning in government spending and maybe, just maybe be able to fund these incredible pension obligations. SOCIAL JUSTICE FOR JUAN WILLIAMS.

Glockster:

Forgot, as usual. You say you will never allow government or special interests to tell you what's good for you. I think special interests ARE telling you, you just don't know it's them. When the government butts in, there's no doubt it's the government. But special interests tell you what to do daily through your pal Limbaugh and other conservative mouthpieces who promote their interests. Follow the big money, you'll be surprised who's really doing the talking.

Pax:

Since this conversation started with your post about the choice in Delaware, I thought we were talking about Coons and O'Donnell since they are the choices in Delaware. But now you're saying the conversation is about ME? That's kinda boring, but ok.

Re: your statement: "My point is that YOU have a strong case of conservativenoia and you quickly (in fact, at times, immediately) turn to personal insults when someone not only disagrees with you, but ALSO if they either DON'T agree with you OR are too slow to do so!"

You're right about the conservative-phobia or -oia part. I can't stand seeing nonsensical comments by conservative entertainers repeated here or anywhere, for that matter. It's unsettling to me because it shows how malleable we are, how easy it is to direct our behavior by inflaming our emotions rather than engaging our intellect. I often think the average American is devolving. My parent's generation were a lot more rational and purposeful in their decision-making. By contrast, my generation--which includes the Tea Partiers because we're around the same age--appear to know less and react more. They run largely on emotion. They say they're mad, but if you ask them what they're mad about, they can't tell you without repeating the generalized cliches and talking points they've heard through the media. It's disturbing.

As for the personal attacks part--I have to disagree with that. I went back and reviewed my posts to you and I don't think I personally attacked you at all. I was being snide when I asked you if you ever thought about or questioned things, but this was because your marxist comment was right out of the conservative narrative that's been running since Coon's article came to light. To me, reading the article explains it all. Coons is clearly not a marxist--a Democrat, yes; a flake, maybe--but the only reason to keep the marxist narrative going is to use it to promote an agenda. The same reason why the Dems were keeping O'Donnells witch statement going, at least until they got better ammunition in the form of her constitutional cluelessness. Witches and marxists dummy down the discourse and deflect from the dull policy stuff that we really should be paying attention to, and too many Americans take this stupid stuff seriously. They can't see that the political media is using it to manipulate them.

In addition, if you compare our posts, you'll see that yours contain tons of personal attacks. When it comes to this, you're clearly the winner here.

Enough about me. I agree with all your factoids plus the addendum, with one exception: this blog is predominately conservative. Very conservative. My point of view is very different from the norm here. That's why I'm called the resident liberal.

Bernie Sanders of Vermont is the only self-proclaimed socialist in the senate that I know of. You may not think he belongs there, but the people of Vermont elected him so it seems they disagree. Also, please explain what you mean by Fox News and MSNBC are not the enemy.

Glockster:

Yeah, yeah, big old bad government is responsible for every problem on the face of the earth. People aren't responsible for anything they do in a free society. The private sector isn't responsible for their own greed and corruption, prior administrations aren't responsible for their bad decisions, individuals aren't responsible for their own reckless spending habits. The government made them do it all! Get rid of government, and greed, corruption and irresponsibility will disappear and mankind will walk the path of righeousness and light!! Hallelujah! Dude, you've been sucking on too many blueberry martinis.

You won't be patient for anything? Like I said, that's part of the problem. And how have our depts of health failed?

What the ? Sorry to disagree with you and the most righteous Tom Periello. Instant gratification got us into this mess? Nonsense. We all know what got us into this mess. We all know what made it worse. One word: Government. The thinking by government officials that everyone should own a home regardless if they can pay for it. GSE's bundling bad paper and requiring Wall Street to accept it bundled with good paper. Government bailing out selected private companies in exchange for seats on corporate boards when they should have been required to go BK and reorganize. Failure of government in this country for decades to address and write laws compatible with global and changing world markets. In other words wholesale manipulation by the government with politically correct regulation, incompetent government oversight and I will agree to another extent, corporate greed by Wall Street investment bankers and a whole lot of other greedy people. But I will never allow government or special interests to tell me what is good for me. I will make my own decisions and I am not going to be patient about anything. I want action and when some clown like Obama for example is portrayed as being the smartest man on the planet, I expect sparks from his heels when he walks along with results. He should not be about blaming prior Presidents because you see What the ? government in a nation of separated powers entails responsibility for government failure from more than just one elected official or political party for that matter.

You still miss my real "story" to you, whatthe?.

I don't give a rat's butt about either of them.

I truly believe there is NO room for a socialist (or communist) in American politics (if Coons is not and you believe it, that is fine --- my point was about socialists, of which there REALLY are a few, and not really about him).

My point is that YOU have a strong case of conservativenoia and you quickly (in fact, at times, immediately) turn to personal insults when someone not only disagrees with you, but ALSO if they either DON'T agree with you OR are too slow to do so!

I have some shocking factoids for you:

-Not every conservative is bad (or every liberal good).
-Not every GOP is far right, or every Dem far left
-Not everyone on this blog is a crazy right winger .
-FOX is not the enemy (nor is MSNBC)
-A thinker CAN vote for a GOP, or a Dem, or a whatever, and change said voting from election to election. In other words, one can vote for a Clinton, and a Bush, and a Perot!
-The current national debt is unsustainable by any view, and not doing something about it immeditaly represents a national security danger

I will add an opinion:

-An addendum to the first two, above --- I believe that the 10-12% at the extreme ends of the spectrum of both parties ARE bad. This includes the furthest left, which I consider the real progressives, and the furthest right (Survivalists? Separatists?). The middle 75% or so are just folks with different views, beliefs, policies, and we get jerked around by our elected politicians into thinking our differences are bigger!

Pax.

Anon ONE:

Saw this while perusing the Huff Post tonight. This is the kind of stuff you accuse me of repeating from the HP. In my post of October 17, 2010 3:35 PM to Glock, I made the following comment:

"Americans have become accustomed to instant gratification in all areas of our lives. Fast food, movies on demand, endless credit so we can get everything we want RIGHT NOW and not have to wait. We've become infants emotionally, we want our problems solved now if not yesterday and we'll abandon any course that makes us uncomfortable or causes us to wait or is difficult. We want our leaders to solve our problems in ways that are painless AND instant. In this way we've become our own worst enemies."

This article appeared this evening:

Rep. Tom Perriello Urges Patience On Economic Growth: 'Instant Gratification' Is What Got Us Into This Mess (VIDEO)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/19/tom-perriello-debate-closing-statement-video_n_769101.html

The article says he made this comment in a debate this evening. Luckily, I made my comment to Glock in a post on Sunday, two days ago. Like I said, you'll often hear it from me FIRST.

This is creepy, tho. Either Tom Perriello reads this blog or I should be writing his stuff.

Closed Mind:

Ok, I see your point. You did not specifically refer to O'Donnell as a witch, you referred to her as "anything". I interpreted this as the whole O'Donnell enchilada: flake, ninny, ex-Wiccan, whatever, with a side of beans ("What I believe is irrelevent") and rice ("Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?") which I'm pretty sure is what you meant by "anything", didn't you? Note to Anon ONE: I watched the Coons/O'Donnell debates myself.

Anything would be preferable to a marxist, if this were the case. But it's not the case; this is a false choice. Just like O'Reilly saying he prefers a witch in office to a marxist is a false choice; neither a witch nor a marxist are running for office. A person who once dabbled in witchcraft and a person who once studied abroad while in college are. Personally, I think studying abroad is a much more worthwhile growth experience than dabbling in witchcraft, but that's just me.

Your comment that "I think there is a world of difference maturity-wise with a high school student playing along with a goth crowd and an adult referring to himself as a bearded Marxist" shows your bias. You can't even use O'Donnells self-described "dabbling in witchcraft" statement. You downgrade it to "playing along with a goth crowd". And if you read Coon's article, you'll see that he doesn't describe himself as a bearded Marxist. This is what his friends called him when he returned from Africa. So like I said, this very discussion is absurd.

I'm going to sit at the grown-up's table now.

As I alluded to in an earlier post, whatthe? has a severe case of “conservativenoia” and sees a closet-conservative Republican in any person with an opinion that even slightly differs from her own. To NOT fall into goose-step agreement with her is to incur her personal attacks. After all, if one can’t be accurate, one might as well be offensive, right?

To clear up some errors in her post (I can’t do them all, but I will hit a few!), I NEVER said a witch was better than a YOU did.

I DID post “..I don’t believe a Marxist should win an election for anything in the U.S. JOMO. No double standard need apply.” I stand by that comment. Note no comp to a witch for those who read slowly (wt?).

If you cannot understand the difference of endorsement versus a point of opinion, well, to bad for your lack of clarity in thought and analysis. Of course, if you DID understand the difference, you would NOT have been able to engage your conservative-phobia by somehow, and for some lame-butted reason, introducing O’Reilly, Beck, Limbaugh, etc. into a discussion that was void of them (for good reason). Whassup with that? Are you really so bizarre that any and everything you address HAS to include a conservative talking head in the discussion?

Also, I went on to include O’Donnell as a flake, but I also included Coons. Unlike you and your limited, closed-minded partisan hack mindset, I actually understand both have issues. Again, your seeing a Republican behind every comment reeks of something between a phobia and paranoia.

As for your children, it seems a little desperate to bring them into such a discussion. First of all, if your oldest went to college than of course she will be liberal (Duh! Follow the odds). The data is in, and clear, on the leanings of our institutions of higher learning. As has been written by many, if you are not a liberal at age 20, you have no heart, if you are not a conservative by age 40, you have no mind! The same applies to your youngest. Your phobic conclusion bashing the right-winger mentality based somehow on your children’s schooling fails in logic, though (just do your research and learn how many actually did spend time in China, Russia, etc).

Grow up and treat people as people, as individuals, and you might find life is a little nicer. Until then, you are just a mean-spirited, little-minded liberal mouthpiece with little to no ability to form your own opinion without the assistance of your progressive masters, and the more you do just that the less intelligent you sound to the rest of us.

As it stands, you are just a divisive, lack the clarity of data or vision,and make a healthy debate impossible.

Anon ONE:

Hey, there! I love Jon Stewart, as you know, but I've NEVER used his material as my own. If I chose to do that, it sure wouldn't be from someone who appears on Comedy Central. And I know who Bill Maher is, but I don't watch his show because I don't subscribe to HBO. And generally if you watch the timeline between things I say here and the Huff Post, you'll often notice that I say it FIRST. Plus I challenge you to find anything on Huff Post that I have repeated here almost verbatim. Seriously, take your time. I'll wait.

Truth be told, I see many silly comments repeated here that originated from right-wing radio and TV commentators, and they're easy to recognize because they're usually absurd and repeated almost word-for-word. I may agree with many liberal sources, but at least I take the time to read and question and come to my own conclusions. I may be wrong sometimes, but at least they're my own mistakes. There's been a few bloggers here over time that do that also, but they've been few and far between. Generally when I respond to some of the stuff I see here, I know I'm really responding to Limbaugh or someone on Fox News.

Glock: Forgot: Just because some schools in the U.S. fall very short doesn't mean our whole educational system is a failure. I'd say government run education is doing a very good job in 203 and 204. But not so much in inner city Chicago. Room for improvement is not equal to failure. And I'm not aware that the departments of health around here are considered failures. I've heard TP candidates call to abolish the Dept. of Ed but no one's called to abolish the Centers for Disease Control. How have the depts of health "failed"?

Wt? wrote: "I'm surprised it took that long to appear on this blog, generally statements by O'Reilly, Beck, Limbaugh and the like get repeated here within 24-48 hours, tops."

-----------------------------

I agree with you wt?, but the person most responsible for commenting and repeating statements has typically been you. You are usually repeating something you saw on Jon Stewart, Maher, or something you read on Huffington.

In another response you wrote: "TPer's are just angry and reactionary, I see them as not having a clue to what's really going on or where the problems lie, they're just emoting."

My response: This is the same feeling I had 2 years ago regarding the Obama supporters.

Closed Mind:

I heard your statement about a witch being better than a marxist said by Bill O'Reilly about a week ago. I'm surprised it took that long to appear on this blog, generally statements by O'Reilly, Beck, Limbaugh and the like get repeated here within 24-48 hours, tops.

I completely understand why radio and tv personalities say things like that. They are entertainers. Viewers and listeners = more advertising $. The more outrageous they are, the bigger the following, the more $. Makes perfect sense. But what's your excuse?

The reality is O'Donnell is not a witch any more than Coons is a marxist. A three or so year age difference is irrelevant, the discussion in itself is absurd. I'm astounded you even took it seriously enough to repeat. But this is what happens when you stop thinking for yourself and let entertainers do it for you. Like I told Glock, Americans like instant everything, even opinions and talking points. Takes too long to read an article and form your own opinion, just parrot someone else so you don't have to think about it or miss Dancing with the Stars. You didn't even think about it long enough to realize how ridiculous it was before you repeated it. Pretty sad.

My oldest studied abroad last year. If she ever became involved in politics, I'm sure her opponents would call her a socialist because she studied for a semester in Europe. She has those socialist cooties now. And my youngest is learning Chinese and wants to go to--where else?--China for her study abroad experience. Makes sense, but if she were to ever run for office, I'm sure she'd be called a communist because she studied in China and was thus infected with commie cooties. That's the American right-wing mentality. But a ninny ex-Wiccan in Washington? Yeah, baby! Too funny.

Glockster:

Busy weekend. Re: safety nets: what you say about Englewood is very true. Slums characterized by people dependent on government for subsidence exist all over America. But Englewood doesn't hold a candle to the slums in third world countries where our kind of safety nets don't exist. I've had people on this blog say Englewood is like Somalia; that's a clear sign of an American who has never seen the kind of poverty Coon's talks about in his bearded Marxist article. Some of these people, probably including you, really need to do what Chris Coon's did: visit any third world country and see it for yourself, and then you'll understand Coon's statement that "I had to see the slums of Nairobi before the slums of New York meant anything at all." A country without safety nets isn't the answer either. Englewood isn't going to turn into Naperville if you pull government assistance. It will turn into Nairobi. What we do may be far from perfect, but it's better than the alternative.

"Job outsourcing, relocation overseas, high crimes of big business and all the other ilks you libs like to complain about are the sole fault of government from top to bottom failing to respond to global economies from a position of leadership and strategy rather than pandering and corruption."

Whoa, that's a kitchen sink comment--you dumped everything in there. But of course this is true to a large extent also. Politics by nature consists of mutually beneficial relationships, so pandering and corruption has always and will always exist. The monied special interests own most of our elected representatives--Reps and Dems alike. We the people need to take our country back from THEM. Until we make this our focus, rather than each other, it won't happen.

And I don't think the Tea Party candidates are the answer, either. TPer's are just angry and reactionary, I see them as not having a clue to what's really going on or where the problems lie, they're just emoting. The fruitcakes they're trying to put in office are testament to this. This country has serious problems that need serious people to address them, not clueless average Joe's who spend their media time talking about masturbation, witchcraft, trading chickens for medical care or what not. Career politicians are part of the problem, but the solution is not putting the idiot in charge of the village.

I don't believe Obama is doing everything perfectly. Never said that. Here's what I do think: Our economy is what it is right now and NO ONE we put in office is going to make any difference in the short term. I also believe this: Americans have become accustomed to instant gratification in all areas of our lives. Fast food, movies on demand, endless credit so we can get everything we want RIGHT NOW and not have to wait. We've become infants emotionally, we want our problems solved now if not yesterday and we'll abandon any course that makes us uncomfortable or causes us to wait or is difficult. We want our leaders to solve our problems in ways that are painless AND instant. In this way we've become our own worst enemies.

Pensions later. Swill a blueberry one for me.

What the ?: First, the kid dislikes politicians-Republicans and especially Democrats. Some of them end up on the bench and they often disregard the cops who come before them with righteous arrests. (Like in the Furstenau case I believe) When he is on court call, he automatically gets three hours of overtime even if he is not called to court. He just has to call in and report available. I kid him that he should take himself into custody for robbing the taxpayers. He reminds me he did not invent the system. Lawyers did. But I think we can agree most cops are conservatives even if you think of them as social workers with those awful guns. Second, you write of safety nets the government provides? What the ? you are indeed a crazy but I bet foxy lady. You are not like Eleanor Clift as someone else thinks. Go to Englewood in Chicago and look at the government safety net. Just go there between 8am and 10am and don't stop for nothin. You just entered the third world of government safety nets. You have entered the twilight zone where life is a weird illusion, where time stands still, the absurd is normal. Where decades of government programs are resposible for misery. Government education. Failure.(Graduates kids who cannot read, write or perform basic math functions while 65% of the rest drop out by the conclusion of high school) Government mass transportation. Failure (Too costly and it has to be subsidized by taxpayers because of inefficiency, union rules, political corruption) Illinos Department of Health, Cook County Public Health Department and City of Chicago Department of Health. Failure. Failure. Failure. (Infant, child AND adult mortality rates on par with the most impoverished countries in the third world) Public housing. Failure (Ramshakle homes and apartments owned by the government in deplorable conditions). Throw food stamps, LINK and WIC into the pot with a few storefront churches and reverands taking government money for purported community "outreach" programs and Englewood is the poster child for what happens when a community allows itself to become dependent on government safety nets. Job outsourcing, relocation overseas, high crimes of big business and all the other ilks you libs like to complain about are the sole fault of government from top to bottom failing to respond to global economies from a position of leadership and strategy rather than pandering and corruption. Professional politicans who rather than using their brains lead with greased palms, handing out favors to inhouse interest groups so they can retain their various political positions. These pensions were promised and escalated with the approval of politicans long gone because they knew they could throw these bones in return for union support. They knew full well they would be gone and forgotten about in years to come when the chickens come home to roost. Now someone else criticized you for your fixation with O'Donnells looks. Not me. At least we share good taste in women and we need to try those blueberry martinis at Houlihans. You only need a few and all this blog nonsense will disappear with a warm feeling from head to toe after the third one.

whatthe?,

You are so cute with your loose references, your ability to turn anything into an attack on what you deem conservatives, and your oddly intense interest on this blog with O’Donnel’s looks!

I think there is a world of difference maturity-wise with a high school student playing along with a goth crowd and an adult referring to himself as a bearded Marxist. I couldn’t care less of the political leanings of either, I only know that I don’t believe a Marxist should win an election for anything in the U.S. JOMO. No double standard need apply.

Having said that, you refer to O’Donnel as a flake. I would point out that even without the Marxist stuff, if you look at Coon’s available record even an irrational person like yourself would have to agree that they are both “flakes”.

Of course, you could never say/post that as you are a committed “conservative-phoib”. You see a closet conservative any and everywhere that exists a person with an opinion that even slightly differs from your own. Your use of leftist talking points is actually quite admirable ---- you use them consistently, correctly, and remind me a lot of Eleanor on the McGlaughlin Group.

And, the clincher of your closed-little mind: You IMMEDIATELY revert to personal attacks in your post. I make a somewhat minor statement, and you jump in with both feet accusing me of not thinking, regurgitating, and having a closed mind.

Have you EVER looked in the mirror, sweetie?

Yes, that is the whatthe? we all know ----- be wrong, be right, who the heck cares, you just personally attack anyone who doesn’t fall into goose-step with your thoughts.

Hey, that sounds a lot like the current leadership of the Democrat party ----- are you really Nancy Pelosi?

Southeast Side,

Please send up a copy of your picture. You are the poster child of why so many people hate people from Naperville and it isn't because of what we have or what they don't have... rather it is because of attitudes like yours.

World Class schools in Naperville? What a joke. First off writing something like that may make you feel good or even be explained as boastful hometown pride, but the real reality is the entire US education system along with Germany comes in at the bottom of the heap of all developed countries. South Korea is rated highest, followed by Japan, Finland, and many others. Even Canada is rated higher than the US. Among all US schools there isn't a single Naperville area public school that rates high enough to even be considered close to being the best of the best even in the US.

And even if a Naperville area public school was able to land a spot at the top of the US schools that isn't saying much considering the US as a whole is at the bottom of the world pile. Even the top 10 US schools would have a hard time making an argument that they are "world class" and Naperville schools are no where even near the top 10.

Sorry to damper your attitude and arrogance with a dose of reality but the facts speak for themselves.

You know what the ?, your recent post cracks me up. This blog is about pension funding. You are on a tangent; that is crazy and I find it interesting. The left wing makes fun of people like Palin and O'Donnell calling THEM stupid never seeming to notice that your professional politicians: Frank, Dodd, Obama (I am only naming democrats but there are Republicans too) are among the so called intelligent leaders who really have screwed this country up. This state is in the toilet by any measure of government responsibility with pension debt the biggest. 70% of vendors doing business with the state, providing goods and services to the state have unpaid bills in excess of 30 days, You are a unique woman. Why you may ask? Because you are among the 4.3 out of ten who think Obama is doing a good job. Others of course may say you are out of step. But really, it is time for people like Palin and O'Donnell and other normal people to try their hand at leadership. A high school student can make the argument that as a nation we have not developed people capable of competent leadership through the political process. And this is what concerns many of us worried about public sector pension benefits, social security benefits, national healthcare and so on. Virtually anything the government does they do not seem to do right.

Glock:

Your son's situation is extremely relevant to this discussion. He is one of the organized government workers that pressured corrupt politicians with campaign funding over the years. He is reaping the rewards of that, and the rest of society is paying the cost.

Yes, the poverty rate in this country continues to rise at an alarming rate. You suggest government is responsible for this. On the contrary, poverty would be even worse if not for the safety nets government provides. The rise in poverty over the last decade is a result of higher unemployment due to increased job outsourcing, big business moving overseas, and the massive unemployment we're still seeing from the near collapse of the economy two years ago, not by government taxes. You're not being taxed if you don't have a job, and the majority of the working poor--minimum wage workers who exist at or just above poverty level--don't pay income taxes anyway. So the government isn't causing poverty, which seems to be what you're suggesting.

Stunnedbybillsclosedmind:

What a choice in Delaware indeed!

A flaky, somewhat nutty but cute TP Republican who admittedly dabbled in witchcraft and picnicked on a bloody satanic alter versus a Republican turned Democrat who wrote an opinion article for his college newspaper which uses the title "The Making of a Bearded Marxist".

I just love the double standard constantly on display here, probably because it's the same double standard constantly on display in the conservative media you guys listen to. O'Donnell's foray into the world of the Wiccans when she was in high school is no big deal to Christian conservatives. Hey, she was young! Those crazy kids! Ha ha! But have a Democrat use the word Marxist around the same age, and all the ha ha's disappear faster than Sharron Angle at a press conference.

So for your illumination, here is a link that shows the original article as it appeared in The Amherst Student on May 23, 1985. It includes a picture of the author, a clean-shaven Chris Coons, no beard in tow. And yes, the link is provided by Media Matters, because I couldn't find any conservative site that reproduced the original article. It's only the title the right-wing media is promoting.

http://s3.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/20100920-coonsamherst.pdf

It's a short article, but just in case you don't want to take 3-4 minutes to read it, as doing so may challenge the talking points you support, here are some excerpts:

Coons explains his choice of the title:

"I spent the spring of my junior year in Africa on the St. Lawrence Kenya Study Program. My friends now joke that something about Kenya, maybe the strange diet, or the tropical sun, changed my personality; Africa to them seems a catalytic converter that takes in clean-shaven, clear-thinking Americans and sends back bearded Marxists."

No where in the article does Coons say he buys into Marxism. He discusses how he was exposed to a lot of it at the University of Nairobi, a big change from his "fairly sheltered, privileged, and politically conservative background". He had a Marxist professor and said that "Some of the "Leftists" that I met early on were terrifyingly persuasive, although I never admitted that". He said he saw in Kenya "poverty and oppression more naked than any in America" and that "I had to see the slums of Nairobi before the slums of New York meant anything at all".

My favorite quote is at the end. "I have spent my senior year reexamining my ideas and have returned to loving America, but in the way of one who has realized its faults and failures and still believes in its promise. The greatest value of Amherst for me, then, has been the role it played in allowing me to question, and to think".

Do you ever question or think? Or do you just fall in line with your party's rhetoric so you don't have to? Given how you regurgitate the latest right wing talking points on this blog indicates who really has the closed mind here.

The issue is that although they are mandated by law to fund them, they have CHOSEN to spend money on other things.

LC, I am not sure this is exactly true. The funding obligation to meet the 2033 deadline has been calculated correctly each year in Naperville and, as far as I can tell, has been paid. The huge downturn in the market threw off all of the heretofore correct calculations.

When the pension formulas assume a rate of return which is too high and and a rate of raises which is too low, the entire system gets severely underfunded.

As of now, the city can ask for a further delay from 2033. It can ask for a constitutional amendment which would allow a decrease in promised pension payments. It can ask for a change in pension obligation for future workers.

But the only real tool at its disposal for the present workers is controlling the rate of raises. This is true for each and every governmental unit which has a defined benefit pension.

Any elected official who ignores this fact or claims otherwise is... a politician.

-1

I am a free market conservative What the ? No government should be so big that the people who it is accountable to are poor. Its like the monarchy in England. Royalty was wealthy and the subjects were poor. Unacceptable. The poverty rate in this country continues to rise at an alarming rate. Accordingly the pensions did not get to where they are overnight. Corrupt pandering politicians yielding to pressure from organized government workers in return for campaign funding threw bones over the years and now we realize the result. Its time to reel in the largess. Government simply must reduce spending, spend less than it budgets not more with my sons situation irrelevent to the argument.

What a choice in Delaware!

If I understand correctly, those who don't want Christine must vote for a self-described marxist.

Seems Like a no brainer, folks ANYTHING is brr than a marxist!

Feel differently? Than move to another country.

Should lawmakers take on the Police and Fire Pension issues? Is that the question? Of course. I think that they did. They wanted them funded, like other penions, by 2033. The issue is that although they are mandated by law to fund them, they have CHOSEN to spend money on other things. So, it needs to be fixed some other ways. Two tied systems, yes, good idea. Increase taxes, umm, no. Increased employee contributions, yes. Cut existing benefits, please, they'll be sued by so many people that no reforms will take place. Don't bother, move on.

Funny thing, someone had to know this was possible or coming. They all have actuaries, consultants, etc. I have to beleive that they all buried their heads in the sand and now cry foul.

BTW, those of you that continue to complain about public employee pensions: you should have worked in the public sector. You had the chance. My guess is that you chose to take a higher paying, riskier job... you gambled and lost. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Glockster:

You bet Christine O'Donnell is a cutie. Wildly successful, not so much, but she'd sure like to be. Problem is, she's a flake and kind of nutty, but you TPers are already used to crazy, so that's not a problem for you. I'm kinda hoping Sharon Angle gets elected in Nevada. How much fun would it be to watch THAT unfold? I was bummed when Orly Taitz wasn't elected in CA--imagine, someone actually being too crazy for California--but Angle is the next best thing, especially since Taitz endorsed her, so there's hope. Just three more weeks. I can hardly wait!

Haven't you ranted against public employee benefits in general in the past? Hasn't your point been that it's not only that these pension obligations are unfunded, but that these unions were able to negotiate pay and benefits that were too generous to begin with, resulting in the city raising taxes repeatedly and still not being able to cover them? The picture always looks a bit different when someone you care about is in it, don't you think?

I don't mix alcohol and firearms. Neither should you.

What the ?: his pension benefits are indeed generous in my opinion. If he retires at age 51, he will have been on the PD (not NPD) 30 years. I believe he could collect 75 or 85% of his final pay after 30 years service. In addition, he is also enrolled in the public employees version of the 401K. I forget what that plan is, 527 or something? Anyway, I believe it to be generous and if that is the deal and he works the career, a deal is a deal and he deserves his retirement package as anyone who complies with the terms of employment. The problem of course is governments cannot fund these pensions. Deserving not will not be the question. The question is will the village be able to pay it in 2031? If they can't because government cannot control spending now and manage future debt, then it will not have been such a good deal after all. We are going to have to rethink pension benefits for future public employees in terms of what they are and how they will be funded. But it is hard to wrap my arms around confidence with the government when there is no restraint on spending. By the way, the O'Donnell gal is cute too. As I was driving back to company hdqtrs. in Oak Brook Terrace, listening to Rush of course I was struck that O'Donnell is another Palin. Wildly successful, so successful in fact that Magical Obama is actually going to make a trip to Delaware maybe next week to campaign for her opponent. Hilarious. The big gun going to campaign for the hearts and minds of what, 40,000 voters? Geez. Now when do we drink?

Should woulda coulda, damage is done. Enjoy your Children's Museum, Bell Tower, Dick Tracy Statue and streets filled with Mini Mansions up for sale. I guess planning for your future plays second fiddle to tearing down original structures in town and opening up another BAR or woman's boutique. Shopping and drinking keep Naperville's economy strong. To hell with pensions....

Maybe the City of Naperville should get their priorities straight and pay the proper amount of money they lawfully have to into the police/fire pension funds. No, they would rather spend millions of dollars on the Dick Tracy statue on the Riverwalk, the crumbling bell tower, and now the Childrens museum. Maybe Dick Furstenau can donate the 1.5 million dollars into the pension fund, seems only fair since thats what he cost the city with his idiotic lawsuit!!!!

Technically, Naperville still does not have a Chic-Fil-A, Aurora does. :)

Glockster:

All amenities that make Naperville a nicer place to live improve property values. That includes things such as the DCM, forest preserves, city parks and services--including that brush pick up you don't like--excellent schools, libraries, etc etc. It's common sense, dude. Otherwise people wouldn't pay more to live here. And pay more they do. If you don't value any of those things and don't want to pay for them, then relocate to another small town. Or you can sit around like a crotchety old fart and do nothing but complain of change and cost, like my 93-year-old father in law does. It sounds like both of you spend more time in the past than the present.

Unlike you, I've lived in many different states and communities. Before moving here, we lived in Sugarland, Texas. Another Money Magazine 10 Best Places to Live town. The biggest difference between Sugarland and Naperville is that Naperville didn't have a Chick-fil-A. Happily, that is no longer the case. But many of the things that you complain raise your taxes are exactly the things that make places like Naperville and Sugarland desirable to tons of people like me.

Since this thread is about pensions, I remember you saying you had a son who is a police officer. Just wondering what your position on police pay, benefits and pensions are, since that's personal for you. Do you feel your son doesn't deserve what he's earning? I happen to think he does, but that's just me.

Next time you turn off the sound to just watch Palin, or think about me, make sure watching and thinking is all you do. You don't want Christine O'Donnell at your door. Or maybe you do! ;)

What the ? you are one crazy lady. I think that crazy spirit is what is making me think about you more and Sarah Palin less.:-) The DCM does NOTHING to enhance property values. Rather it does however increase the property tax nut. By the way, I was here long before there was a SD 204. In fact Naperville stopped at Gartner Rd. and they were about half done with Naperville Plaza at the time. There was no south east side either. I and a good number of other old time residents will convincingly tell you that Naperville was a better town when it was 12,000 than 143,000. Obviously change happenz but I am not going anywhere. This is one tea bagger who will remain here to challenge you carpet baggers. Now when can we meet at Houlihans in the land of 204 OZ and swill some blueberry martinis?

The City should stop complaining about its pension obligations.

They are known. They cannot change without a constitutional amendment.

There is one and only one solution to the problem.

Pay the employees who get generous pensions less money (lower raises) so the pension obligation is smaller.

Simple math.

-1

Southeast Side:

I'm with you. All these complainers care about are taxes, and they resent paying for anything that they don't think benefits them directly. They fail to see, or care, that something that enhances the community in general is also a benefit to the individuals who live there. A children's museum is a desirable feature for young families. My kids are way past children's museum age, but I don't mind the city maintaining this feature for the community. The more desirable our community, the better for everyone's property values, including mine.

Naperville has proved to be an excellent community to raise and educate our kids. They are both accomplished high achievers, and the education they have received in 204 has equipped them to successfully compete for entrance and scholarships to some of the nation's best colleges.

For those who only care about getting the lowest possible tax rate: find a cheaper place to live. I think the majority of folks who choose to live around here see the bigger picture and value what we have. If you don't, then you probably have a different life philosophy and should be living someplace else. Don't hang around and try to ruin Naperville for the rest of us.

after a good laugh they asked "have you seen the taxes"? No way were moving there.

I call BS. In what city/village are the taxes appreciably any lower? For what you pay in Naperville you get world-class schools and the best libraries in America. The parks are abundant and the police and fire keep everyone safe. You maybe can pay less elsewhere, but you get better VALUE here in Naperville.

I like our schools and our services - if you don't, maybe YOU should move. Good Riddance!

glock 22 RTF:

Knew you would like it. Glad I could send some joy your way!

Thanks WT?. I know you Huff and Koz readers probably were laughing down your noses but I found that link refreshing, relaxing and amusing. And I do like Sara Palin. When she is in on TV I often turn the volume down and just watch her. Schhhhwing!

Glock 22 RTF 2:

Hey, dude! Found you a kindred spirit. This guy likes Glocks probably for the same reason you do:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOZEOvkg4TM

Enjoy!

Glock 22 RTF 2:

xoxo!

--WT

It would be interesting to know how many of the public employees retire with a last year kicker, how many with a disability benefit and how many remain in State after the pension is turned on. The last time I was in Arizona, it seemed that every second person was from Illinois.

I vividly recall suggesting to the spouse of a 203 teacher that they should look at buying a house in Naperville, after a good laugh they asked "have you seen the taxes"? No way were moving there.

First I do not accept the premise that ANYTHING is reformed in this state. When politicians use the word reform like in health care reform, it is just another scam with a new angle. That might work for unsophisticated people like What the ? on this blog but we more seasoned participants have a very healthy, long term skepticism of any politicans convincing the press and then trying to convey on us that they promote reform. But I have a suggestion for the Naperville lawmakers (Grant Wherli excluded) DO NOT SPEND THE HARD EARNED MONEY OF THE CITIZENS FROM WHOM YOU CONFISCATE MONEY IN TAX SCHEMES ON BOONDOGGLES LIKE THE CHILDRENS MUSEUM WHEN YOU CLAIM YOU CANNOT PICK UP MY BRUSH PILE THIS FALL BECAUSE (We should be taking care of our own brush and leaves anyway. Its part of the expense of owning a home. It is not the governments job. What next, are you going to mow my lawn? YOU HAVE NO MONEY. DO NOT TELL ME THE MONEY YOU SPEND ON THE SMART GRID WILL SAVE MONEY IN THE FUTURE. DO NOT INVEST IN A CLEAN COAL PLANT DOWNSTATE THAT IS TENS OF MILLIONS OVER BUDGET AND NOT COMPLETED DO NOT SPEND OUR MONEY ON A BELL TOWER. On a lighter note, the debate last night on overnight parking in the downtown garages was hilarious. If my company had its so called "leaders" engaged in that kind of diatribe nonsense, we would be fired or out of business or both. And to Dick Furstenau, you are going to be very upset with me if you come a knockin on my door in the hood this election cycle. You are going to meet a respectful but angry (al la Grant Wherli mad) voter my friend.

"Now that pension funding for public employees has been reformed..."

Ha ha ha

Who is the joker writing these intros? I guess the same people writing the ballot initiatives. Changing the ultimate payout structure for those who have yet to work is not reforming the pension funding for public employees.

With the FD and PD, there needs to be an almost 2:1 employer(city):employee pay-in right now to keep up. That will not improve. Defined benefit plans can really turn out to be huge liabilities when investment growth cannot outpace wage growth by enough to adequately fund the benefits.

Although you can figure out what I think from the paragraph above, I think the wording on the ballot is misleading.

-1

It is, by definition, a political issue. However, it is at its base a practical issue as the future costs of these pensions is no longer feasible.

Over the years the contracts have been easily negotiated and approved based on the idea that the politicians could forward the pain to a future leader & generation. that time is upon us.

In short, I cannot see any financial reality to saying we, as a society, can continue to create and approve pension programs that result in retirements at age 50, 55, or whatever at yearly "incomes" that can start at $80,000 to $90,000 a year, grow from there, and include unbelievable medical benefits.

We saw thias in the auto industry in the 70s ---- an economic imbalance was created when, on average, the people making/supplying the product were making more than those purchasing the product.

Now, we have public workers not only making 40% more than the private group, but also having retiurement benefits of pensions (defined benefits) and medical that dwarf those of the private workforce. let us also acknowledge that the private workforce is shrinking as a result of policies being created and implemented gby the same public class that falls within these benefits!

In short, it is a clear cluster you-know-what that has finally come fully to light.

Now, in thecase of PD and FD, we DO need to look at the limits of age that affect their ability to do their jobs, and create something accordingly. Perhaps one answer is beginning the switch to 401K-type retirement systems for them that also allow for larger funding limits than we get in the private system?