The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

Existence. Fortunately the Sun will take care of that in 4-5 billion years.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

I'm with you on the seriousness of gadget consumerism. One example of the evil effects: I have to manage student employees and it drives me nuts that they can't work or do anything without musical plugs jammed into their earholes 24/7. Conversation is impossible. I won't even go into texting and driving/walking/classroom "learning"/etc. I tell you what. Then they go on yer lawn...

Agreed that communication can be a real challenge, at least face-to-face real interactions. We get strange reactions all the time that we have cell phones basically only for emergencies or once in awhile traveling, and we don't text at all. I just don't see what having myself glued to these devices all the times would do to make my life more fulfilling?

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

After following politics a little more closely lately, because I was interested in the Vikings stadium stuff here in MN, I believe the biggest problem we have is that we are electing complete ****ing idiots to represent us. On both sides of the aisle.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

After following politics a little more closely lately, because I was interested in the Vikings stadium stuff here in MN, I believe the biggest problem we have is that we are electing complete ****ing idiots to represent us. On both sides of the aisle.

Giant Dou**e.
Turd Sandwich.

...better give it another ten seconds.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

Existence. Fortunately the Sun will take care of that in 4-5 billion years.

It's all still just shifting atoms around. Even if the universe suffers heat death, all the same stuff will still "exist." Just... spread out.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

Apparently it's not only pensions for public-sector unions that are sucking all the money away from us (progressives take note! unless public sector pensions are reformed, there will be no money left to fund your agendas!!); private-sector union pensions are also woefully underfunded.

The problem may seem arcane....but a pensioner has no investment risk whatsoever. No matter how well or how poorly investments perform, they are "entitled" to a fixed monthly payment.

While that in itself is neither good nor bad, it does lend itself to manipulation. A plan with little investment risk should use an assumed investment return in line with that risk profile, or in today's marketplace, around 4.0% to 4.5%. However, many plans are actually using 7.5% or 8.0%, which gives an illusion that plans are better funded than they really are.

Imagine the panic if investors discovered that many of the nation's biggest public companies had hidden liabilities so large as to make them worth a fraction of their value. That's something akin to the shock created by the recent Credit Suisse report on multi-employer pension plans.

In "Crawling Out of the Shadows," analysts David Zion, Amit Varshney and Nicole Burnap address the big but opaque world of pensions in which companies across an industry pay into a single asset pool. These 1,400 union-run retirement vehicles have long been poorly run and underfunded. But Credit Suisse has dug deeper and found how really big the mess is.

Among the findings: Multi-employer plans in the U.S. are underfunded by some $369 billion. An estimated $43 billion of that off-balance-sheet liability belongs to the 44 S&P 500 companies that are exposed to multi-employer plans. The other 88% of the $369 billion is borne by small, mid-cap or private firms that may be even less prepared to cover the obligations. The report says Safeway's $6.9 billion in liabilities amount to 76% of the company's market cap, for example.

All of this ought to be especially embarrassing to Washington, which requires annual filings to the Department of Labor on multi-employer plans and measures their financial health. But Labor uses an "actuarial" reading of the numbers, which envisions an average (and hefty) 7.5% rate of return on investments, smoothed over five years. Even under that generous view, about 500 plans—or 37%—are less than 80% funded and thus considered financially troubled.

More gloomy news here (unless you are a stock market investor looking to short some of the companies mentioned.....)


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...41108053800.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

Yes, but sentient beings from earth will be swallowed up by the Sun. Destroyed forever.

Which is why we need to get off the planet.

 

[Carter]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

We get strange reactions all the time that we have cell phones basically only for emergencies or once in awhile traveling, and we don't text at all. I just don't see what having myself glued to these devices all the times would do to make my life more fulfilling?

This, absolutely.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

Which is why we need to get off the planet.

Never happen.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

Never happen.

Yeah, it will. If nothing else the Chinese will build Hive Colonies. All we need is another space race. Maybe this time the Crazy Christians and the Crazy Muslims will race to evangelize the swamp people of Rigel 4.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

Never happen.

Agreed.

 

[pirate]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

No to the first, yes to the second. We have had civil unions for heterosexual couples above the age of consent for hundreds of years. We merely extend them to same-sex couples. There is no "separate-but-equal" about it.

This is my understanding of it...it has nothing to do with churches or religion. Sure, some religious people would be against civil unions but they are against a lot of things that are pretty much accepted throughout the country. Just notify the governments that they need to recognize the unions, much like integration in the 60's. If they decline then decline them federal funding for projects in their state or city. People will warm up to "those kinds of people" getting married if the alternative is paying for all of their schools and highways out of local taxes.

Churches can choose to also accomodate religious ceremonies according to their charter and constituents' wishes...given the cry for separation in all other matters, there is no way the government should be telling religious institutions they have to do anything in this regard.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

No to the first, yes to the second. We have had civil unions for heterosexual couples above the age of consent for hundreds of years. We merely extend them to same-sex couples. There is no "separate-but-equal" about it.

Not so sure about that. I don't have time to research futher...but wiki is always a good starting point:

In the United States, although same-sex marriages are not recognized federally, same-sex couples can legally marry in six states (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont) and the District of Columbia and receive state-level benefits. Civil union, civil partnership, domestic partnership, registered partnership, unregistered partnership, and unregistered cohabitation statuses offer varying legal benefits of marriage and are available to same-sex couples in: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Washington and federal District of Columbia.

Also unless I missed something, the government is not mandating churches deliver same sex marriages.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

As someone who has zero cares about whether the gays can get married or not, and is not particularly religious, the way I would like to see it is: Marriage=Religious ceremony with no government involvment. Civil Union (or any other term you want)=Government status. Any 2 people can go to the government and get the same benefits from the government. Individual religions decide what their policies are for what would be termed "marriage". But, I'm guessing that there is no way that this would fly.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

As someone who has zero cares about whether the gays can get married or not, and is not particularly religious, the way I would like to see it is: Marriage=Religious ceremony with no government involvment. Civil Union (or any other term you want)=Government status. Any 2 people can go to the government and get the same benefits from the government. Individual religions decide what their policies are for what would be termed "marriage".

This seems eminently reasonable and proper and something everyone should be able to live with. As far as society as a whole goes, "civil unions" and "secular marriage" are totally indistinguishable from one another. The rest is semantics.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

As someone who has zero cares about whether the gays can get married or not, and is not particularly religious, the way I would like to see it is: Marriage=Religious ceremony with no government involvment. Civil Union (or any other term you want)=Government status. Any 2 people can go to the government and get the same benefits from the government. Individual religions decide what their policies are for what would be termed "marriage". But, I'm guessing that there is no way that this would fly.

Given that the government recognises a religious union (otherwise known as a marriage) and the term on the tax form is "married", that would be why it won't fly. I'm absolutely fine with your thoughts on the matter.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

Given that the government recognises a religious union (otherwise known as a marriage) and the term on the tax form is "married", that would be why it won't fly. I'm absolutely fine with your thoughts on the matter.

I don't think you are quite right on the first point. While the government does recognize some religious unions (it does not recognize a second marriage as long as a first marriage has not been terminated, for example); it does not limit marriage only to religious unions.

The term on the tax form is something that is easily adjusted.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

Churches can choose to also accomodate religious ceremonies according to their charter and constituents' wishes...given the cry for separation in all other matters, there is no way the government should be telling religious institutions they have to do anything in this regard.

Can a church deny a mixed race marriage? if so, then this should be no different.

What a church does shouldn't affect your civil status. But people can get "married" by the state. If a church objects to the term "married," then they can go find another strictly religious term.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

As someone who has zero cares about whether the gays can get married or not, and is not particularly religious, the way I would like to see it is: Marriage=Religious ceremony with no government involvment. Civil Union (or any other term you want)=Government status. Any 2 people can go to the government and get the same benefits from the government. Individual religions decide what their policies are for what would be termed "marriage". But, I'm guessing that there is no way that this would fly.

Wouldn't fly with me. My wife and I don't belong to any church. But we are married. That's between us, not some old guy with a funny hat.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today

Wouldn't fly with me. My wife and I don't belong to any church. But we are married. That's between us, not some old guy with a funny hat.

The term that a government uses shouldn't affect that. If you consider youself married, then you're married, whether the government uses the term "married" or some other term. I could have clarified more in that first post.