Nanker Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 Unfunded public pensions - and this is just at the municipal level. The states are collectively over $3 trillion in hock. Well, - aren't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 If the democrats want to see a real revolution then they can just go ahead and try to give a half trillion dollars or more to the public union pensions plans of corrupt liberal state governments on both coasts. This bail out for the "retiring early at full pay" union crowd off the backs of the country, and their children, and their children's children, will go over about as well as discovery of the salary of the Mayor (and other public officials) of Bell, California. To paraphrase Clint Eastwood, "Make our day..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 (edited) Why don't they just come out tommorrow and say everybody has got to work till 85... Wait for the boomers to keel over and then we can go back to the normal age. I am 42, that should buy me about 20 or so years to let things sort out. Edited October 12, 2010 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 Why don't they just come out tommorrow and say everybody has got to work till 85... Wait for the boomers to keel over and then we can go back to the normal age. I am 42, that should buy me about 20 or so years to let things sort out. Who is telling who how long they have to work now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 (edited) They won't get the bailout they are seeking. State and local governments will continue to downsize relative to inflation for a quite some time. This is a long-term good positive development. Short-term pain through job cuts, long-term positive through lower taxes which will lead to higher employment. Edited October 12, 2010 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 Who is telling who how long they have to work now? Only for you... You got some years on me. Hey, something "has to give." We gotta get through this whole 1950 t0 1960 birth phase and have a ton of money kicked in off their backs... And keel over WHILE they are working. Compared to your parent's generation, the boomers are quite the brats and need to work a little longer. FWIW, I am just busting your balls Chef (if you can't tell). Just talking to a guy at work... Older fella... He said it used to say he can get full retirement (not full pay) at 67... It now says 70. Should I laugh or cry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 Dear Unions: The 50s are over. Get a 401K like everyone else. Signed, Everybody Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/opinion/12brooks.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 12, 2010 Author Share Posted October 12, 2010 http://www.nytimes.c...n/12brooks.html He makes very good points in that article. Brooks is no hard-line conservative, but he's about the most conservative on staff at the Gray Lady. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 Only for you... You got some years on me. Hey, something "has to give." We gotta get through this whole 1950 t0 1960 birth phase and have a ton of money kicked in off their backs... And keel over WHILE they are working. Compared to your parent's generation, the boomers are quite the brats and need to work a little longer. FWIW, I am just busting your balls Chef (if you can't tell). Just talking to a guy at work... Older fella... He said it used to say he can get full retirement (not full pay) at 67... It now says 70. Should I laugh or cry? Whose fault is it he can't get full retirement until 70? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 Whose fault is it he can't get full retirement until 70? What? Why is anybody to be at fault? Gee, way to look at things totally wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 What? Why is anybody to be at fault? Gee, way to look at things totally wrong! Ok then why does he now have to wait until 70 to retire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 Ok then why does he now have to wait until 70 to retire? So he can drop dead when he is working and not tap into the retirement. Should that be the plan with you Boomers? Like I said... Push it to 85... Then when things simmer down and many have dropped off... Lower it back. They had it good enough through the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 So he can drop dead when he is working and not tap into the retirement. Should that be the plan with you Boomers? Like I said... Push it to 85... Then when things simmer down and many have dropped off... Lower it back. They had it good enough through the years. Lower what back? S.S? Anyone who is timing their retirement based on when they can collect SS blew it and they have no one to blame but themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/opinion/12brooks.html Daniel DiSalvo, a political scientist at the City College of New York, has a superb survey of the problem in the new issue of National Affairs. DiSalvo notes that nationally, state and local workers earn on average $14 more per hour in wages and benefits than their private sector counterparts. A city like Buffalo has as many public workers as it did in 1950, even though it has lost half its population. :worthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 So he can drop dead when he is working and not tap into the retirement. Should that be the plan with you Boomers? Like I said... Push it to 85... Then when things simmer down and many have dropped off... Lower it back. They had it good enough through the years. Better to give people SS at 60 and then cut it off at 63, not to be ageist but anyone who wants everyone working to 70+ hasn't really thought about it very deeply, also I can't wait for the old style retirement plan to start namely families with 6+ children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 (edited) Better to give people SS at 60 and then cut it off at 63, not to be ageist but anyone who wants everyone working to 70+ hasn't really thought about it very deeply, Actually, I don't believe you have thought abut this very deeply, please explain to me how you came to this conclusion (although I believe I know where you are heading with this), I would be deeply interested in hearing YOURview and discussing this topic. Edited October 14, 2010 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 I've been talking about this for years. I bet 99% of the public has absolutely no idea/understanding of the enormity of the issue. I just can't wait till all the "but.....they were promised!!!" rationalizations when lawmakers have known for decades that this was not sustainable. Dear Unions: The 50s are over. Get a 401K like everyone else. Signed, Everybody Dear Everyone, F*** you. We love our built in voting bloc and enormous kickbacks, no matter what it costs the country in the end. Signed, Democrats. http://www.nytimes.c...n/12brooks.html Brilliantly stated. What does it say about the issue when even the NY Times allows that to be published in its pages? Many left wing apologists here (pBills in particular) love to hide behind the false "but the contracts were negotiated", nonsense, but as Brooks correctly points out, "Government managers possess a monopoly on their services and have little incentive to resist union demands. It would only make them unpopular." Simply put, public sector unions are the #1 obstacle to the future success of this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 I've been talking about this for years. I bet 99% of the public has absolutely no idea/understanding of the enormity of the issue. I just can't wait till all the "but.....they were promised!!!" rationalizations when lawmakers have known for decades that this was not sustainable. What issue are you talking about? All I have to do is change the discount rate on my pension plan, and the underfunding goes away. It's really a simple fix. You people are getting all tied up about nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 14, 2010 Share Posted October 14, 2010 What does it say about the issue when even the NY Times allows that to be published in its pages? Nothing. Why you so shocked? Oh, wait... You thought the NYTimes was a total liberal media mouthpiece. I am sorry carry on back to your Fox News. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts