A few days back I was going to write about different "religious" secret societies and symbolism; but, I didn't feel I got it quite right and then I came across this.
ABC News - Satanists Perform ‘Gay Ritual’ at Westboro Gravesite. The newsman talks about these "Devil Worshipers". Well, they are not Devil Worshipers because they do not believe in a literal Devil. If ABC had bothered reading what they have posted on their website they would have understood that or, just maybe, they did know and were looking for a sexy story.
Here is a quote and a link to their website. "Satanism is not mindless abandon and depravity, but a philosophy that drives us to lead fruitful and dignified, epicurean lives. Satan, the symbolic force of design that would urge humanity toward refined pleasures of the Arts and Sciences." The Satanic Temple. Another quote from them, "The Satanic Temple seeks to separate Religion from Superstition by acknowledging religious belief as a metaphorical framework with which we construct a narrative context for our goals and works. Satan stands as the ultimate icon for the selfless revolt against tyranny, free & rational inquiry, and the responsible pursuit of happiness." The fact is that this particular group sees Satan and God as myth and metaphor, not real live beings.
You might ask yourself why all the ritual. It is nothing more than performance art meant to challenge believers. The "Church of Satan" (founded by Anton LaVey, the author of "The Satanic Bible) is also run by an Atheist. Here is the difference between these two groups, "The Church of Satan" doesn't do public protests. The "Satanic Temple" which is doing these protests is using the imagery to protest religion's influence on society.
The so called "Pink Mass" that they performed is not a Satanic Ritual, it is a protest. They supposedly held a mass where two men kissed above the grave of a Westboro Baptist Church founder's mother to turn her gay. THERE IS NO SUCH RITUAL IN SATANISM. This is all just more media deception to get people angry and they know that these people are just putting on a show. Christians with any insight (and we are told to be discerning) need to understand that this is ridicule by Atheists and not by true believers in Satan.
Groups claiming to be Satanists or Luciferians are often not in the literal sense. Many are collections of Atheists and Agnostics who do not like having fundamentalist Christianity forced upon them and use the imagery to upset and ridicule. People who actually believe in a literal and real person to be Satan or Lucifer and actually believe that their rituals have supernatural powers would not be allowed in these groups and are often small groups of young men and women who feel powerless, these are the ones that commit animal sacrifices and on occasion other horrible acts in secret. These type of people would not be allowed to be members of either of the Church of Satan or The Satanic Temple.
I do not consider members of the Westboro Baptist Church to be Christians as they show no true love for others and rather than helping people to see God's love, seek to condemn others who do not believe as they do and that is not what we are told to do. Westboro is not meaningful; but, because of their media stunts gets publicity. They are more dangerous to the church than the so called Satanists.
Do not expect the media to be forthcoming about the truth, expect them to exploit people's fears and bigotry and blame it on religion, that is the real attack to the church. Anyone who has read this blog for a long time or my writings on other websites knows that I am a Christian. I am primarily concerned with apologetics which is the defense of the faith. It should also be clear from my writings that I detest willful ignorance and knee jerk reactions. If you truly believe in God then you will love others, forgive others and help others, that is what Jesus told us to do. Anyone who truly believes that if Jesus were alive today he would be protesting at someone's funeral is a fool, he would be comforting the family.
Friday, July 19, 2013
The Deceit in Detroit's Bankruptcy Regarding Pensions
Detroit Free Press - How a Chapter 9 bankruptcy could affect Detroit pensions, health care. Detroit is in trouble, Detroit has been in trouble for awhile and now it is declaring Bankruptcy. Detroit had attempted to blame their situation on their pension costs; but, it is a lie. Detroit lost half it's population, it's tax base and property taxes are abysmal and every municipality has been hurt by the economy.
Here is how a public pension works. For most employees they make a contribution and the municipality makes a contribution. This money is put in a bank account that is owned by the employees, not by the municipality although it may help manage it or assign people to it's board overseeing the pension. The question was raised and continues to be raised as to whether or not the pension fund can be raided to help pay the cities debt. It cannot, the money ceased being the municipalities the minute it was put into the pension account, same as if it had been paid directly to the employee and the employee had invested it in a retirement account themselves.
The next trick Detroit wants to try is slashing pensions for people who have already retired even though the money is already in the pension fund. Well, that seems odd doesn't it? It does until you understand the effect it would have, it would allow Detroit to turn that money over to new hires to fund their pension even though they did not work for it. Remember how San Bernardino declared bankruptcy and blamed it on it's pension obligations and then it turned out that CalPers caught them hiding the money that would have more than paid their obligations. I bet they would have found it later.
You might have noticed that municipalities are not going after Police and Fire pensions, have you wondered why when the biggest costs in most cities is for police and fire? Lets consider what happens when you change your pension rules. Many municipalities are cutting benefits for new hires and making them work more years. Instead of being able to retire after 30 years of service, new hires might have to work 40 years. Okay, lets say you worked 4 years with half of them in government, because you will get a pension, you do not get Social Security or it is so reduced as to be ludicrous even though you put my money in social security. Because a government pension seems secure many people choose to enter government.
Now, what happens if you don't have benefits for new people who go into government? You don't get any good people. Maybe you are a young engineer and want to build libraries, you could go into private industry or government. A good engineer who who just wanted security and to know what to expect (most engineers are very conservative), you go into government. Now, if you don't get a pension, why would you go into government unless you couldn't get hired anywhere else. If you don't think the government has any good engineers you should look at the Public Works projects of the last 100 years and you might find they were some of the best construction projects in the world.
A pension is used as handcuffs in the government. You hire them young and hold out the pension as a giant carrot. Once they have sufficient institutional knowledge and experience they won't leave you because by then they have too much invested in their retirement. In private industry the average employee changes companies every 6 years (this may have changed since 2008 with all the layoffs). With a 401k, you have no long term commitment to the company so you jump around as you will. You gain skills from one company and then sell them at a higher price to another company if you are any good. What happens when the average government employee spends six years and then goes into private industry because it no longer benefits them to stay for 30 years? I know this answer, they will sell you out if they can, they will give your inner workings and decision working away to private industry at least the ones who can will and the ones who cannot don't really matter anyways.
You may think generals may make a lot of money and have a great pension, they do not. They live the life of the wealthy; but, do not make the money and don't have to. When they retire if they wish to continue that lifestyle, they have to prostitute themselves out to industry and it pays well, more than they ever made in government. They use their respect from people who used to work for them to sell them on whatever company they work for.
Now lets get back to the article. Now here is the kicker, from the article, "But Orr says the city will stop making additional payments to its pension funds, which would total $200 million to $350 million annually. This could trigger a recalculation of future monthly pension checks." So, his solution to the problem is not have any government contribution to pensions. Wow. That is a disincentive to even consider working for Detroit. Even most companies offer a 401k and kick in something. This is a game, the offer is to have existing employees go into a 401k and the City will contribute something or offer new hires a 401k with no matching contribution. It is a negotiating ploy and a show for the residents of Detroit.
So how will it end. People who are retired and have already made their payments into the system are not going to accept losing what they have paid in and will be paid their pensions. New blood will not be found and the civilian workforce will be contracted out or at least a great majority of it. This reduces the pension obligation of the municipality; but, costs do not go down. This will not happen immediately, it will be a slow painful death.
It begins with municipalities being able to hire anyone and lots of good talent, people who lost their jobs in private industry, people who were raised in private industry. Right now nobody is hiring except in the service industry. Right now you can hire people from private industry at a quarter of what they used to make with 20 years experience. They will do well for government if they can adjust and then, because they get no benefits as new hires, will leave as soon as they can sell your municipality out because that is what they learned in private industry.
The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) is the best financial minds in government. They have said that there is no public pension crisis, the pensions are funded and can continue as currently configured. There was a change in how these pensions are reported. It used to be that you showed current expenditures and income and assets. Now you show future expenditures. It is as if you bought a house today for $100,000 and over the course of the 30 year loan would spend $300,000. Now would you show your current costs as the yearly mortgage ($7,000), your total owed if you paid off today ($100,000) or what you expect to pay over the next 30 years, the life of the loan ($300,000). It is an apple to orange question. Municipalities are showing their pension life-cycle debt ($300,000) compared to their annual income rather than what they expect to take in over 30 years.
It is actually quite simple. There is more than enough funds to pay off people's public pensions if we cease giving pensions to new hires. There is no pension problem. New hires can cut their own deals, that is true for every generation. The problem is that it will be real hard long term to get or keep good talent in government if they are not offered some retirement and the politicians don't trust having a workforce that doesn't owe them something and is willing to switch back to private industry and give them up in a heart beat. They lose all leverage.
Here is how a public pension works. For most employees they make a contribution and the municipality makes a contribution. This money is put in a bank account that is owned by the employees, not by the municipality although it may help manage it or assign people to it's board overseeing the pension. The question was raised and continues to be raised as to whether or not the pension fund can be raided to help pay the cities debt. It cannot, the money ceased being the municipalities the minute it was put into the pension account, same as if it had been paid directly to the employee and the employee had invested it in a retirement account themselves.
The next trick Detroit wants to try is slashing pensions for people who have already retired even though the money is already in the pension fund. Well, that seems odd doesn't it? It does until you understand the effect it would have, it would allow Detroit to turn that money over to new hires to fund their pension even though they did not work for it. Remember how San Bernardino declared bankruptcy and blamed it on it's pension obligations and then it turned out that CalPers caught them hiding the money that would have more than paid their obligations. I bet they would have found it later.
You might have noticed that municipalities are not going after Police and Fire pensions, have you wondered why when the biggest costs in most cities is for police and fire? Lets consider what happens when you change your pension rules. Many municipalities are cutting benefits for new hires and making them work more years. Instead of being able to retire after 30 years of service, new hires might have to work 40 years. Okay, lets say you worked 4 years with half of them in government, because you will get a pension, you do not get Social Security or it is so reduced as to be ludicrous even though you put my money in social security. Because a government pension seems secure many people choose to enter government.
Now, what happens if you don't have benefits for new people who go into government? You don't get any good people. Maybe you are a young engineer and want to build libraries, you could go into private industry or government. A good engineer who who just wanted security and to know what to expect (most engineers are very conservative), you go into government. Now, if you don't get a pension, why would you go into government unless you couldn't get hired anywhere else. If you don't think the government has any good engineers you should look at the Public Works projects of the last 100 years and you might find they were some of the best construction projects in the world.
A pension is used as handcuffs in the government. You hire them young and hold out the pension as a giant carrot. Once they have sufficient institutional knowledge and experience they won't leave you because by then they have too much invested in their retirement. In private industry the average employee changes companies every 6 years (this may have changed since 2008 with all the layoffs). With a 401k, you have no long term commitment to the company so you jump around as you will. You gain skills from one company and then sell them at a higher price to another company if you are any good. What happens when the average government employee spends six years and then goes into private industry because it no longer benefits them to stay for 30 years? I know this answer, they will sell you out if they can, they will give your inner workings and decision working away to private industry at least the ones who can will and the ones who cannot don't really matter anyways.
You may think generals may make a lot of money and have a great pension, they do not. They live the life of the wealthy; but, do not make the money and don't have to. When they retire if they wish to continue that lifestyle, they have to prostitute themselves out to industry and it pays well, more than they ever made in government. They use their respect from people who used to work for them to sell them on whatever company they work for.
Now lets get back to the article. Now here is the kicker, from the article, "But Orr says the city will stop making additional payments to its pension funds, which would total $200 million to $350 million annually. This could trigger a recalculation of future monthly pension checks." So, his solution to the problem is not have any government contribution to pensions. Wow. That is a disincentive to even consider working for Detroit. Even most companies offer a 401k and kick in something. This is a game, the offer is to have existing employees go into a 401k and the City will contribute something or offer new hires a 401k with no matching contribution. It is a negotiating ploy and a show for the residents of Detroit.
So how will it end. People who are retired and have already made their payments into the system are not going to accept losing what they have paid in and will be paid their pensions. New blood will not be found and the civilian workforce will be contracted out or at least a great majority of it. This reduces the pension obligation of the municipality; but, costs do not go down. This will not happen immediately, it will be a slow painful death.
It begins with municipalities being able to hire anyone and lots of good talent, people who lost their jobs in private industry, people who were raised in private industry. Right now nobody is hiring except in the service industry. Right now you can hire people from private industry at a quarter of what they used to make with 20 years experience. They will do well for government if they can adjust and then, because they get no benefits as new hires, will leave as soon as they can sell your municipality out because that is what they learned in private industry.
The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) is the best financial minds in government. They have said that there is no public pension crisis, the pensions are funded and can continue as currently configured. There was a change in how these pensions are reported. It used to be that you showed current expenditures and income and assets. Now you show future expenditures. It is as if you bought a house today for $100,000 and over the course of the 30 year loan would spend $300,000. Now would you show your current costs as the yearly mortgage ($7,000), your total owed if you paid off today ($100,000) or what you expect to pay over the next 30 years, the life of the loan ($300,000). It is an apple to orange question. Municipalities are showing their pension life-cycle debt ($300,000) compared to their annual income rather than what they expect to take in over 30 years.
It is actually quite simple. There is more than enough funds to pay off people's public pensions if we cease giving pensions to new hires. There is no pension problem. New hires can cut their own deals, that is true for every generation. The problem is that it will be real hard long term to get or keep good talent in government if they are not offered some retirement and the politicians don't trust having a workforce that doesn't owe them something and is willing to switch back to private industry and give them up in a heart beat. They lose all leverage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)