|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 24 2014 13:40 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2014 13:29 IgnE wrote:On March 24 2014 13:16 Sub40APM wrote:On March 24 2014 12:25 IgnE wrote:
It's not a transfer of wealth because the government made money on TARP! How silly of me!
No matter that 95% of the income gains since 2009 have gone to the top 1%, Ya and without Fed action everyne would have been poorer, how is that better? pensions are being slashed left and right, A lot of pension funds are invested in the stock market, so chances are that a lot of peoples' savings went up in the last 3-4 years people who lost their homes never got a bailout, Some did. Others did. Some people who deserved a bailout got screwed. But some people shouldnt have had those homesi n the first place Yes, how silly of me to call the bailout a transfer of wealth. The banks made a bunch of money on the biggest financial disaster since the great depression, and it trickled right down to everybody else . . . Ya again, the other alternative we were discussing was that the Fed being even more conservative, means even more people are screwed for longer. Would it have been better to have an even looser policy? Yes, of course. But compared to the other central banks, the Fed did a better job. Yes, the Fed is the only possible tool in the entire universe to rectify this wrong. No, but considering how ineffective liberal politicians seem to be and how pathetic the Occupy types were, its the only effective tool Show nested quote +
Then why is there so much talk recently about cutting pensions? Multiple city, local, and state pension plans are on the chopping block.
Because a lot of these pension plans are idiotic. Retire at 55 and get 80% of your salary while you take another job? Show nested quote +Everyone is invoking the spectre of Detroit as a pretense to break the deal they made a generation ago. The deal was: you continue working without wage increases for the foreseeable future and we will set you up with a nice pension and financial security. Except now it's oops! we all have to tighten our belts. It's becoming clear that pensions were a bait and switch tactic, by which capital deferred wage increases till tomorrow in the form of a pension. And now that pensions are coming due, they don't want to uphold their end of the bargain. So fuck the workers, because we have corporate profits to preserve.
What corporate profits? You are talking about public pensions and then do a switchero to blaming corporate profits? A lot of public pensions are going broke because they offered ridiculous benefits that are bankrupting the governments that offered them and the tax payer isnt interested in paying up for. Yes, its true, corporate pensions have been mostly replaced with 401ks, which is why the Fed's intervention in the markets was a good thing for people whose pensions depend on the stock market, which is most employees in America.
The pensions are not idiotic. They were the deal struck between capital and wage labor. And yes corporate profits that are at an all time high. Raise taxes on corporations and you can pay the pensions.
|
To be clear Igne: Are you claiming that a pension that lets you retire at 55 with 80% of your salary is not idiotic?
|
On March 24 2014 13:49 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2014 13:40 Sub40APM wrote:On March 24 2014 13:29 IgnE wrote:On March 24 2014 13:16 Sub40APM wrote:On March 24 2014 12:25 IgnE wrote:
It's not a transfer of wealth because the government made money on TARP! How silly of me!
No matter that 95% of the income gains since 2009 have gone to the top 1%, Ya and without Fed action everyne would have been poorer, how is that better? pensions are being slashed left and right, A lot of pension funds are invested in the stock market, so chances are that a lot of peoples' savings went up in the last 3-4 years people who lost their homes never got a bailout, Some did. Others did. Some people who deserved a bailout got screwed. But some people shouldnt have had those homesi n the first place Yes, how silly of me to call the bailout a transfer of wealth. The banks made a bunch of money on the biggest financial disaster since the great depression, and it trickled right down to everybody else . . . Ya again, the other alternative we were discussing was that the Fed being even more conservative, means even more people are screwed for longer. Would it have been better to have an even looser policy? Yes, of course. But compared to the other central banks, the Fed did a better job. Yes, the Fed is the only possible tool in the entire universe to rectify this wrong. No, but considering how ineffective liberal politicians seem to be and how pathetic the Occupy types were, its the only effective tool
Then why is there so much talk recently about cutting pensions? Multiple city, local, and state pension plans are on the chopping block.
Because a lot of these pension plans are idiotic. Retire at 55 and get 80% of your salary while you take another job? Everyone is invoking the spectre of Detroit as a pretense to break the deal they made a generation ago. The deal was: you continue working without wage increases for the foreseeable future and we will set you up with a nice pension and financial security. Except now it's oops! we all have to tighten our belts. It's becoming clear that pensions were a bait and switch tactic, by which capital deferred wage increases till tomorrow in the form of a pension. And now that pensions are coming due, they don't want to uphold their end of the bargain. So fuck the workers, because we have corporate profits to preserve.
What corporate profits? You are talking about public pensions and then do a switchero to blaming corporate profits? A lot of public pensions are going broke because they offered ridiculous benefits that are bankrupting the governments that offered them and the tax payer isnt interested in paying up for. Yes, its true, corporate pensions have been mostly replaced with 401ks, which is why the Fed's intervention in the markets was a good thing for people whose pensions depend on the stock market, which is most employees in America. The pensions are not idiotic. They were the deal struck between capital and wage labor. And yes corporate profits that are at an all time high. Raise taxes on corporations and you can pay the pensions.
Public pensions that are currently going broke are idiotic, they were built with ludicrous growth assumptions and allow ex-public employees to enjoy a second career while collecting two pay checks.
The deal that was struck was struck in an environment where a third of the world was recovering from the war, a third was enslaved by colonialism and a third enslaved by communism. The world middle class income is defined as 1000 dollars a day. So there is a long way to go before adjustment to a world without communism and colonialism is complete.
|
On March 24 2014 13:49 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2014 13:40 Sub40APM wrote:On March 24 2014 13:29 IgnE wrote:On March 24 2014 13:16 Sub40APM wrote:On March 24 2014 12:25 IgnE wrote:
It's not a transfer of wealth because the government made money on TARP! How silly of me!
No matter that 95% of the income gains since 2009 have gone to the top 1%, Ya and without Fed action everyne would have been poorer, how is that better? pensions are being slashed left and right, A lot of pension funds are invested in the stock market, so chances are that a lot of peoples' savings went up in the last 3-4 years people who lost their homes never got a bailout, Some did. Others did. Some people who deserved a bailout got screwed. But some people shouldnt have had those homesi n the first place Yes, how silly of me to call the bailout a transfer of wealth. The banks made a bunch of money on the biggest financial disaster since the great depression, and it trickled right down to everybody else . . . Ya again, the other alternative we were discussing was that the Fed being even more conservative, means even more people are screwed for longer. Would it have been better to have an even looser policy? Yes, of course. But compared to the other central banks, the Fed did a better job. Yes, the Fed is the only possible tool in the entire universe to rectify this wrong. No, but considering how ineffective liberal politicians seem to be and how pathetic the Occupy types were, its the only effective tool
Then why is there so much talk recently about cutting pensions? Multiple city, local, and state pension plans are on the chopping block.
Because a lot of these pension plans are idiotic. Retire at 55 and get 80% of your salary while you take another job? Everyone is invoking the spectre of Detroit as a pretense to break the deal they made a generation ago. The deal was: you continue working without wage increases for the foreseeable future and we will set you up with a nice pension and financial security. Except now it's oops! we all have to tighten our belts. It's becoming clear that pensions were a bait and switch tactic, by which capital deferred wage increases till tomorrow in the form of a pension. And now that pensions are coming due, they don't want to uphold their end of the bargain. So fuck the workers, because we have corporate profits to preserve.
What corporate profits? You are talking about public pensions and then do a switchero to blaming corporate profits? A lot of public pensions are going broke because they offered ridiculous benefits that are bankrupting the governments that offered them and the tax payer isnt interested in paying up for. Yes, its true, corporate pensions have been mostly replaced with 401ks, which is why the Fed's intervention in the markets was a good thing for people whose pensions depend on the stock market, which is most employees in America. The pensions are not idiotic. They were the deal struck between capital and wage labor. And yes corporate profits that are at an all time high. Raise taxes on corporations and you can pay the pensions.
Huh? Public pensions?
|
On March 24 2014 13:59 zlefin wrote:
To be clear Igne: Are you claiming that a pension that lets you retire at 55 with 80% of your salary is not idiotic?
Less idiotic than CEO compensation yes. We've been talking about wealth inequality, and every non-crazy person agrees it's a problem, but suddenly pensions are idiotic because they reward people who have dedicated their lives to building up a company and its attendant profits.
Edit: Sadly the private pension is almost dead. Killed off by the capitalists who never wanted to pay it in the first place and replaced by the 401k which is a pathetic imitation at best.
|
On March 24 2014 14:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2014 13:49 IgnE wrote:On March 24 2014 13:40 Sub40APM wrote:On March 24 2014 13:29 IgnE wrote:On March 24 2014 13:16 Sub40APM wrote:On March 24 2014 12:25 IgnE wrote:
It's not a transfer of wealth because the government made money on TARP! How silly of me!
No matter that 95% of the income gains since 2009 have gone to the top 1%, Ya and without Fed action everyne would have been poorer, how is that better? pensions are being slashed left and right, A lot of pension funds are invested in the stock market, so chances are that a lot of peoples' savings went up in the last 3-4 years people who lost their homes never got a bailout, Some did. Others did. Some people who deserved a bailout got screwed. But some people shouldnt have had those homesi n the first place Yes, how silly of me to call the bailout a transfer of wealth. The banks made a bunch of money on the biggest financial disaster since the great depression, and it trickled right down to everybody else . . . Ya again, the other alternative we were discussing was that the Fed being even more conservative, means even more people are screwed for longer. Would it have been better to have an even looser policy? Yes, of course. But compared to the other central banks, the Fed did a better job. Yes, the Fed is the only possible tool in the entire universe to rectify this wrong. No, but considering how ineffective liberal politicians seem to be and how pathetic the Occupy types were, its the only effective tool
Then why is there so much talk recently about cutting pensions? Multiple city, local, and state pension plans are on the chopping block.
Because a lot of these pension plans are idiotic. Retire at 55 and get 80% of your salary while you take another job? Everyone is invoking the spectre of Detroit as a pretense to break the deal they made a generation ago. The deal was: you continue working without wage increases for the foreseeable future and we will set you up with a nice pension and financial security. Except now it's oops! we all have to tighten our belts. It's becoming clear that pensions were a bait and switch tactic, by which capital deferred wage increases till tomorrow in the form of a pension. And now that pensions are coming due, they don't want to uphold their end of the bargain. So fuck the workers, because we have corporate profits to preserve.
What corporate profits? You are talking about public pensions and then do a switchero to blaming corporate profits? A lot of public pensions are going broke because they offered ridiculous benefits that are bankrupting the governments that offered them and the tax payer isnt interested in paying up for. Yes, its true, corporate pensions have been mostly replaced with 401ks, which is why the Fed's intervention in the markets was a good thing for people whose pensions depend on the stock market, which is most employees in America. The pensions are not idiotic. They were the deal struck between capital and wage labor. And yes corporate profits that are at an all time high. Raise taxes on corporations and you can pay the pensions. Huh? Public pensions?
Yes, people worked in the PUBLIC sector for less money than the private sector a generation ago because they knew there was a pension at the end of the tunnel. They provided public services that contributed to the social good including the society that corporations made massive profits in. Their pensions were guaranteed by the government who borrows money from corporations and pays them back with interest rather than simply raising taxes to pay for the shit that a supermajority of people think the government should provide. And now instead of taxing those corporations, the government keeps their taxes at an all time low instead of honoring the public deal they made to people who served their nation and local government.
|
Pensions are fine, silly and unsound pensions are not; too many were negotiated unsoundly or in bad faith to my view. You can't have people retiring at 55 these days and keep it funded.
Government jobs aren't necessarily some great sacrifice, or an sacrifice at all; while the direct pay is lower, the benefits tend to be higher, as is the job security.
Also, I'd gladly fix the issues with corporate tax if I could, but I can't, and that's a separate issue.
|
It is not a separate issue. The pensions, which were guaranteed to the workers, could be paid by raising the taxes.
|
plutocrats spending millions on propaganda against it means it's good for you.
|
Public employees receive more pay on average than the private sector worker, not including pensions. The public sector also creates more millionaires than the private sector. This doesn't even consider the bribery and illegality of having public sector unions.
I hope most of the people who post here don't vote. The ignorance is amazing.
|
On March 24 2014 15:03 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
Public employees receive more pay on average than the private sector worker, not including pensions. The public sector also creates more millionaires than the private sector. This doesn't even consider the bribery and illegality of having public sector unions.
I hope most of the people who post here don't vote. The ignorance is amazing.
Yep the poor pensioners of Detroit were mostly millionaires living high on the hog.
|
On March 24 2014 14:36 IgnE wrote:
It is not a separate issue. The pensions, which were guaranteed to the workers, could be paid by raising the taxes.
That a fiscal issue could be solved by raising taxes on some other group is not a basis for them to be the same issue.
And if the promise was improperly made it is invalid.
|
On March 24 2014 14:09 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2014 14:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 24 2014 13:49 IgnE wrote:On March 24 2014 13:40 Sub40APM wrote:On March 24 2014 13:29 IgnE wrote:On March 24 2014 13:16 Sub40APM wrote:On March 24 2014 12:25 IgnE wrote:
It's not a transfer of wealth because the government made money on TARP! How silly of me!
No matter that 95% of the income gains since 2009 have gone to the top 1%, Ya and without Fed action everyne would have been poorer, how is that better? pensions are being slashed left and right, A lot of pension funds are invested in the stock market, so chances are that a lot of peoples' savings went up in the last 3-4 years people who lost their homes never got a bailout, Some did. Others did. Some people who deserved a bailout got screwed. But some people shouldnt have had those homesi n the first place Yes, how silly of me to call the bailout a transfer of wealth. The banks made a bunch of money on the biggest financial disaster since the great depression, and it trickled right down to everybody else . . . Ya again, the other alternative we were discussing was that the Fed being even more conservative, means even more people are screwed for longer. Would it have been better to have an even looser policy? Yes, of course. But compared to the other central banks, the Fed did a better job. Yes, the Fed is the only possible tool in the entire universe to rectify this wrong. No, but considering how ineffective liberal politicians seem to be and how pathetic the Occupy types were, its the only effective tool
Then why is there so much talk recently about cutting pensions? Multiple city, local, and state pension plans are on the chopping block.
Because a lot of these pension plans are idiotic. Retire at 55 and get 80% of your salary while you take another job? Everyone is invoking the spectre of Detroit as a pretense to break the deal they made a generation ago. The deal was: you continue working without wage increases for the foreseeable future and we will set you up with a nice pension and financial security. Except now it's oops! we all have to tighten our belts. It's becoming clear that pensions were a bait and switch tactic, by which capital deferred wage increases till tomorrow in the form of a pension. And now that pensions are coming due, they don't want to uphold their end of the bargain. So fuck the workers, because we have corporate profits to preserve.
What corporate profits? You are talking about public pensions and then do a switchero to blaming corporate profits? A lot of public pensions are going broke because they offered ridiculous benefits that are bankrupting the governments that offered them and the tax payer isnt interested in paying up for. Yes, its true, corporate pensions have been mostly replaced with 401ks, which is why the Fed's intervention in the markets was a good thing for people whose pensions depend on the stock market, which is most employees in America. The pensions are not idiotic. They were the deal struck between capital and wage labor. And yes corporate profits that are at an all time high. Raise taxes on corporations and you can pay the pensions. Huh? Public pensions? Yes, people worked in the PUBLIC sector for less money than the private sector a generation ago because they knew there was a pension at the end of the tunnel. They provided public services that contributed to the social good including the society that corporations made massive profits in. Their pensions were guaranteed by the government who borrows money from corporations and pays them back with interest rather than simply raising taxes to pay for the shit that a supermajority of people think the government should provide. And now instead of taxing those corporations, the government keeps their taxes at an all time low instead of honoring the public deal they made to people who served their nation and local government.
Don't forget that pensions are capital. You're going to tax away profits than you're going to lower share values, which hurts pensions. Part of the problem with pensions is that if the rate of return you expect doesn't happen, or revenue into the organization doesn't happen, what seemed like a reasonable promise can get really out of hand.
In the case of Detroit taxes weren't a great option because the city was having difficulty enough keeping businesses and residents there as-is.
Not sure why you're railing against muni-bonds. Raising taxes to pay for cap-ex (big projects) isn't really viable. You're really going to do a one-off levy to build a bridge?
|
On March 24 2014 15:09 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2014 14:36 IgnE wrote:
It is not a separate issue. The pensions, which were guaranteed to the workers, could be paid by raising the taxes. That a fiscal issue could be solved by raising taxes on some other group is not a basis for them to be the same issue. And if the promise was improperly made it is invalid.
"If the promise was improperly made it is invalid." What does that even mean? Improperly made according to whom? You are just repeating this to subtly undermine the validity of pensions that weren't questioned for decades. It just so happens that people want to stop paying them when the bill comes due.
On March 24 2014 15:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2014 14:09 IgnE wrote:On March 24 2014 14:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 24 2014 13:49 IgnE wrote:On March 24 2014 13:40 Sub40APM wrote:On March 24 2014 13:29 IgnE wrote:On March 24 2014 13:16 Sub40APM wrote:On March 24 2014 12:25 IgnE wrote:
It's not a transfer of wealth because the government made money on TARP! How silly of me!
No matter that 95% of the income gains since 2009 have gone to the top 1%, Ya and without Fed action everyne would have been poorer, how is that better? pensions are being slashed left and right, A lot of pension funds are invested in the stock market, so chances are that a lot of peoples' savings went up in the last 3-4 years people who lost their homes never got a bailout, Some did. Others did. Some people who deserved a bailout got screwed. But some people shouldnt have had those homesi n the first place Yes, how silly of me to call the bailout a transfer of wealth. The banks made a bunch of money on the biggest financial disaster since the great depression, and it trickled right down to everybody else . . . Ya again, the other alternative we were discussing was that the Fed being even more conservative, means even more people are screwed for longer. Would it have been better to have an even looser policy? Yes, of course. But compared to the other central banks, the Fed did a better job. Yes, the Fed is the only possible tool in the entire universe to rectify this wrong. No, but considering how ineffective liberal politicians seem to be and how pathetic the Occupy types were, its the only effective tool
Then why is there so much talk recently about cutting pensions? Multiple city, local, and state pension plans are on the chopping block.
Because a lot of these pension plans are idiotic. Retire at 55 and get 80% of your salary while you take another job? Everyone is invoking the spectre of Detroit as a pretense to break the deal they made a generation ago. The deal was: you continue working without wage increases for the foreseeable future and we will set you up with a nice pension and financial security. Except now it's oops! we all have to tighten our belts. It's becoming clear that pensions were a bait and switch tactic, by which capital deferred wage increases till tomorrow in the form of a pension. And now that pensions are coming due, they don't want to uphold their end of the bargain. So fuck the workers, because we have corporate profits to preserve.
What corporate profits? You are talking about public pensions and then do a switchero to blaming corporate profits? A lot of public pensions are going broke because they offered ridiculous benefits that are bankrupting the governments that offered them and the tax payer isnt interested in paying up for. Yes, its true, corporate pensions have been mostly replaced with 401ks, which is why the Fed's intervention in the markets was a good thing for people whose pensions depend on the stock market, which is most employees in America. The pensions are not idiotic. They were the deal struck between capital and wage labor. And yes corporate profits that are at an all time high. Raise taxes on corporations and you can pay the pensions. Huh? Public pensions? Yes, people worked in the PUBLIC sector for less money than the private sector a generation ago because they knew there was a pension at the end of the tunnel. They provided public services that contributed to the social good including the society that corporations made massive profits in. Their pensions were guaranteed by the government who borrows money from corporations and pays them back with interest rather than simply raising taxes to pay for the shit that a supermajority of people think the government should provide. And now instead of taxing those corporations, the government keeps their taxes at an all time low instead of honoring the public deal they made to people who served their nation and local government. Don't forget that pensions are capital. You're going to tax away profits than you're going to lower share values, which hurts pensions. Part of the problem with pensions is that if the rate of return you expect doesn't happen, or revenue into the organization doesn't happen, what seemed like a reasonable promise can get really out of hand. In the case of Detroit taxes weren't a great option because the city was having difficulty enough keeping businesses and residents there as-is. Not sure why you're railing against muni-bonds. Raising taxes to pay for cap-ex (big projects) isn't really viable. You're really going to do a one-off levy to build a bridge?
It's not viable if your only concern is how well the corporations are going to do. If your concern is to pay what you owe the workers, and redistribute some of the vast wealth accumulated by the richest in this country then it is viable. The reneging on pensions is just another way that the wealthiest people are fucking over the rest. You for one are always talking about how even if wages haven't gone up for the working class in this country, other benefits have. Well these are the other benefits, and you are arguing that they should be taken away as well because they aren't "economically viable." Think about the stock prices! Wages haven't gone up for decades, almost all the gains since 2008 have gone to the richest, and it's not going to change anytime soon. The businesses know. You have Walmart for the poor and you have high-end stores for the rich minority. The middle-class merchandise distributors are being shut down and replaced with luxury goods peddlers all over this country, while a Walmart opens up across town to soak up the demand of the formerly middle class.
|
On March 24 2014 15:03 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
The public sector also creates more millionaires than the private sector. T
...what? This makes about as much sense as someone claiming in that other thread that the 90s was a period of deflation...
|
The people railing against pensions are the same ones that supported bailed out financial firms paying bonuses with bailout money because contracts are sacred (at least the politicians/pundits)...
If it was a private company and the government made a long horizon promise like pensions the same people would be screaming bloody murder if the government wanted to reduce or change the compensation outside of the contracted agreement. "It could bankrupt the company and ruin lives etc..."
According to most tea party folks and conservatives we cant afford anything let alone pensions, so should we do the same to military retirees I mean they can retire at under 50? So people who signed a contract saying they would get $X at end of Y years the government should just be able to change those contracts too? Or is it only non-military people who you think should have their money stolen?
Just so it's clear I'll re-ask.
Do those that think cutting public sector retirements is a viable option also advocate doing the same to military retirees? Why or why not?
I think we can all agree they shouldn't touch a single workers pension until they cut their own?
|
Interesting article by Reuters on the pension fund problems in the US.
Speaking in general, public pension systems are badly underfunded in states, such as Colorado, that give elected politicians in the legislature the power to set funding levels. Oregon and other states that are mandated by law to meet annual funding requirements are in much better shape.
Over the past five years, only nine states have made the full required contributions to their pension plans, according to the non-partisan Pew Center on the States.
source
Seems like it's more a political problem than anything. You can't expect to pay out the promised pensions if you don't fund them well.
|
On March 24 2014 19:30 RvB wrote:Interesting article by Reuters on the pension fund problems in the US. Show nested quote +Speaking in general, public pension systems are badly underfunded in states, such as Colorado, that give elected politicians in the legislature the power to set funding levels. Oregon and other states that are mandated by law to meet annual funding requirements are in much better shape.
Over the past five years, only nine states have made the full required contributions to their pension plans, according to the non-partisan Pew Center on the States. sourceSeems like it's more a political problem than anything. You can't expect to pay out the promised pensions if you don't fund them well. The last thing you want on the road to re-election is opposition from large public employee unions. The first thing you do to keep that support is dismiss the funding problems currently plaguing them. Promise that the rich will pay through increased taxation. As Jonny pointed out, Detroit lost that option. The political problem continues.
|
On March 25 2014 03:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2014 19:30 RvB wrote:Interesting article by Reuters on the pension fund problems in the US. Speaking in general, public pension systems are badly underfunded in states, such as Colorado, that give elected politicians in the legislature the power to set funding levels. Oregon and other states that are mandated by law to meet annual funding requirements are in much better shape.
Over the past five years, only nine states have made the full required contributions to their pension plans, according to the non-partisan Pew Center on the States. sourceSeems like it's more a political problem than anything. You can't expect to pay out the promised pensions if you don't fund them well. The last thing you want on the road to re-election is opposition from large public employee unions. The first thing you do to keep that support is dismiss the funding problems currently plaguing them. Promise that the rich will pay through increased taxation. As Jonny pointed out, Detroit lost that option. The political problem continues.
That your way of saying "Yes, the government should reduce it's contractual commitments to military retirees because it can't afford the ridiculous commitments it has made. The veterans should of known that a government in ever increasing debt would never be able to fulfill those ridiculous obligations and should just expect to have their retirements cut down or removed all together because they simply aren't sustainable."?
|
On March 25 2014 03:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2014 19:30 RvB wrote:Interesting article by Reuters on the pension fund problems in the US. Speaking in general, public pension systems are badly underfunded in states, such as Colorado, that give elected politicians in the legislature the power to set funding levels. Oregon and other states that are mandated by law to meet annual funding requirements are in much better shape.
Over the past five years, only nine states have made the full required contributions to their pension plans, according to the non-partisan Pew Center on the States. sourceSeems like it's more a political problem than anything. You can't expect to pay out the promised pensions if you don't fund them well. The last thing you want on the road to re-election is opposition from large public employee unions. The first thing you do to keep that support is dismiss the funding problems currently plaguing them. Promise that the rich will pay through increased taxation. As Jonny pointed out, Detroit lost that option. The political problem continues.
You are forgetting the most critical element of your story: the politicians, including Obama, brazenly lie to the unions over and over again. Inequality has only gotten worse in the 6 years since Obama was elected, and pensions are being cut left and right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
