I’d argue they are: Loveless and/or unstable marriages and forcing people to keep children they don’t want all seem to contribute to the production of criminals.
This may just turn out to be the most helpful comment in this thread.
Ralph Wiggum:
The OP’s link doesn’t work. I suspect I may not be missing a great deal.
That’s because the moderator has changed my post and added a period at the end of the URL, apparently.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577452793597495290
You still need to subscribe to read more than the first paragraph. Why don’t you summarize it?
Well stated. In fact, I would go so far as to add the heretical thought that not only would we like for them to make their own decisions, we’d like for them to take responsibility for the outcomes of those decisions.
If only the outcome of your decision to be a delusional nutjob were more severe. If only.
Translation: Conservatives want the people they prey upon to be on their own, helpless, and for the government to ignore their cries of help as you and your fellow conservatives oppress, exploit, assault or kill them. But if they fight back, then you want the government to stomp on them for you.
DT, you’re a fool.
Conservatives want people to be able to make their own decisions, but they also want those people to be responsible for the results of those divisions. You and every other lib are apparently incapable of understanding that.
I understand it fine; I simply don’t believe it. Conservatives have always been the enemy of freedom, and “personal responsibility” is just code for making sure that people who are oppressed or exploited have no recourse. Conservatism throughout all of history has always been evil, a force of greed and tyranny and cruelty. It has always fought against good and to defend evil; whether it’s opposition to letting women vote or fighting to keep blacks slaves, it has always stood for tyranny and evil.
I’d be more receptive to that if conservatives didn’t also seek to deny people numerous important options for dealing with those results.
Uh, I contribure 9% of my salary to my pension. Good enough for you?
Seriously, I try not to be as crazy as DT, but it is really hard not to read that as “We want people to have the freedom to be suckered and then have to live with the results of being suckered.”
Sorry, my bad - I’ve fixed the link in the OP.
Depends on the rules of your pension.
In my city workers can retire as young as 55 (with 30 years) at 100% of their highest ever salary. At those rules, they need to be contributing more than 9%, or the system goes broke, which it is doing.
We can retire at 75% after 35 years in the system. Good enough now?
You beat me to it.
Man, you summed it up PERFECTLY.
Peachy. It sounds like your pension may be adequately funded. Many of them are not. Many of the ones that are not are in my state. Ok if I worry about it?