Post 1 opens the discussion by quoting Weatherford's remarks on the subject relayed by a local newspaper. Posted by a "liberal", the post highlights Weatherford's characterization of the current plan as "outdated". Post 2 follows with details about a study that was recently commissioned by the state house, and other notes from the newspaper article.
In Post 3 an additional influence is introduced in the form of references from another article on the subject found online. The post attempts to define two schools of thought on the subject, as well as to speak of the cynicism in the party opposed to Weatherford's Republican Majority. The post also illustrates the depth of influence for the parties involved, that two cities in a state may be seen as "liberal" cities with similar "liberal" ideas, while other cities and ideas are "conservative". This view assumes that these two adjectives categorize all perspectives involved in thought on the matter.
Fortunately, Post 4 introduces another influence of the many to come. Posted by an "egalitarian", the post highlights concerns of actual state workers quoted from the comments sections of a blog post in the "egalitarian" character's home region.
Post 5 adds a more conservative voice to the conversation, continuing to quote from the same blog post comments as Post 4. As mentioned in previous introductory posts on this blog, the voices represented on the forum reflect the interests of actual citizens of the state, so, the fiscal conservative forum character reinforces the characterization of the pension systems as antiquated, with an increased risk of liability for the public.
From here the conversation swirls with the influence of newspaper and blog articles representing the many sides of the discussion battling it out for 'right and wrong'.
What emerges from the conversation is a rather sober, if not obvious view of the proposal:
The proposing party claims the status quo is unsustainable, and that the state should adapt to the system preferred by major corporations all over the country. Corporations converted from pension system retirement programs to personal savings models in the last 30 years or so, opening up a large chunk of cashflow in the process. More profitable companies out-competed those reluctant to shift their business culture to one that values profits above all else. The onus now on individuals to manage their retirement options correctly is deemed as preferable to many since that transition.
This "conservative" view, favoring individualized choice (or individualized risk), flies directly in the face of a multitude of political arguments made in favor of starting the FRS to begin with. Apart from these counter-arguments, there are also valid criticisms of the argument in favor of the proposal as being purely based in rhetoric.
Republicans in the state house refer to the FRS as "outdated" and "liability risk" as an introduction to the proposal, essentially saying whatever they want in the framing of the debate without ever having to support such claims. And, while it would be naive to say that Democrats haven't made similar strawman arguments in this debate, at least in this instance, Republicans appear to have the weaker of the characterizations.
It seems the legislature commissioned an actuarial firm from Virginia to make a cost assessment for the proposed changes to the FRS. What they didn't commission was an assessment for the current FRS as it is today. Thus, making it possible to suggest this: Republicans are proposing this legislation while making blanket assertions at the beginning of the debate which have no basis in fact.
There are several other comments and sidebars about the systems of society within the State in this thread. Considering the liberal leanings of the forum in general, though, the conversation presently tends toward a view of the proposed changes to the FRS as a bad idea, or a poorly constructed argument. But there is plenty more room for opinion.
If you live in Florida, you and I have one thing in common. One thing in common is all we need to have in order to focus our hopes for the future into actions we can see in our lifetimes. Glancing at a civics forum for 5 minutes a day may not only teach you something about the way our world is working (at least in Florida), but may inspire you to become more involved in the debate.
Join the forum. Lurk, debate, criticize, etc. The Polymath Slacker values anonymity, so make up a fictional character for yourself if you'd like (a gimmick). Use your voice to help inform this debate and others.
Thanks for reading.
The proposing party claims the status quo is unsustainable, and that the state should adapt to the system preferred by major corporations all over the country. Corporations converted from pension system retirement programs to personal savings models in the last 30 years or so, opening up a large chunk of cashflow in the process. More profitable companies out-competed those reluctant to shift their business culture to one that values profits above all else. The onus now on individuals to manage their retirement options correctly is deemed as preferable to many since that transition.
This "conservative" view, favoring individualized choice (or individualized risk), flies directly in the face of a multitude of political arguments made in favor of starting the FRS to begin with. Apart from these counter-arguments, there are also valid criticisms of the argument in favor of the proposal as being purely based in rhetoric.
Republicans in the state house refer to the FRS as "outdated" and "liability risk" as an introduction to the proposal, essentially saying whatever they want in the framing of the debate without ever having to support such claims. And, while it would be naive to say that Democrats haven't made similar strawman arguments in this debate, at least in this instance, Republicans appear to have the weaker of the characterizations.
It seems the legislature commissioned an actuarial firm from Virginia to make a cost assessment for the proposed changes to the FRS. What they didn't commission was an assessment for the current FRS as it is today. Thus, making it possible to suggest this: Republicans are proposing this legislation while making blanket assertions at the beginning of the debate which have no basis in fact.
There are several other comments and sidebars about the systems of society within the State in this thread. Considering the liberal leanings of the forum in general, though, the conversation presently tends toward a view of the proposed changes to the FRS as a bad idea, or a poorly constructed argument. But there is plenty more room for opinion.
If you live in Florida, you and I have one thing in common. One thing in common is all we need to have in order to focus our hopes for the future into actions we can see in our lifetimes. Glancing at a civics forum for 5 minutes a day may not only teach you something about the way our world is working (at least in Florida), but may inspire you to become more involved in the debate.
Join the forum. Lurk, debate, criticize, etc. The Polymath Slacker values anonymity, so make up a fictional character for yourself if you'd like (a gimmick). Use your voice to help inform this debate and others.
Thanks for reading.
this could be better
ReplyDelete