Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on January 20, 2011, 09:42:00 PM
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/business/economy/21bankruptcy.html?src=busln
DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!
From the article:
Bankruptcy could permit a state to alter its contractual promises to retirees, which are often protected by state constitutions
I won't live or work in a State that declares bankruptcy.
Under the above-quoted premise, if something merely costs the State too much money (and is justified to a Judge as such), the Constitutional provision that MANDATES it MUST BE DONE is invalidated?!?
I hate welfare and State health care. But if the idgits in a State put it in their Constitution, that's sacrosanct until the PEOPLE OF THAT STATE remove it.
Anything else is judicial activism of the worst sort.
-
It's probably the only way for states like CA to survive. Not saying any of it is right, but it's probably going to go that way.
Why do you think Obama intervened in the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies, and extorted the bond holders to take dimes on the dollar? He saved the union's pensions and benefits by screwing the people who were legally first in line to be paid, the bond holders.
-
I'd like to see an example of a state constitution with these sorts of obligations in it. I've seen state constitutions guarantee public education, but never pensions or the like.
Ultimately, whether it's in the constitution or not, if there's no money there, it can't be paid. Politicians can make all of the promises they want, even put those promises in a constitution, but they can't do anything to create the resources needed to fulfill those promises. I'm not sure what the solution is, here.
Beyond their short-term budget gaps, some states have deep structural problems, like insolvent pension funds, that are diverting money from essential public services like education and health care.
Effing New York Times. HEALTH CARE IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC SERVICE OF THE STATE!!
-
It's probably the only way for states like CA to survive. Not saying any of it is right, but it's probably going to go that way.
Why do you think Obama intervened in the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies, and extorted the bond holders to take dimes on the dollar? He saved the union's pensions and benefits by screwing the people who were legally first in line to be paid, the bond holders.
I hope that becomes his presidential legacy.
-
Effing New York Times. HEALTH CARE IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC SERVICE OF THE STATE!!
Neither is education.
-
It used to be that if you wanted to retire well, get a state or government job. Looks like that gravy boat is running dry. My sister is a school teacher, she can retire in a year or two... Maybe not, Nevada is broke. In 2006 the dems cleaned up here and they passed every liberal dream they could think up. If the governor vetoed a bill, they over road it at will. They helped to break this state and now we have to pick up the pieces.
-
Ultimately, whether it's in the constitution or not, if there's no money there, it can't be paid.
I am terrified of the actual argument that:
1. It's in the Constitution;
2. State declares Bankruptcy;
3. Constitutional Provision "X" is viewed by Bankruptcy Court as being a burden on the Bankruptcy proceedings;
4. Bankruptcy Judge vetoes Constitution.
Think about it:
"Law enforcement costs due to gang violence, terrorism and senseless gun crimes are expensive epidemics that plague the coffers of our State, draining money from our Constitutionally Mandated Health Care. As such, as Bankruptcy Judge in this proceeding, I'm nullifying the [2nd? depends on the State] Amendment to the State Constitution permitting the citizens of this state to keep and bear arms. Citizens must turn in all firearms after these proceedings are concluded."
How is that any different than yanking Health Care out of a Constitutional Provision?
I hate Health Care and Socialism... but if a State put them in the Constitution, then it seems to me that the only body that can pull it back out would be the State legislature proposing it and then putting it to public referendum.
Judges CANNOT strike the State Constitution, any more than SCOTUS can strike the Constitution of the United States.
-
I am terrified of the actual argument that:
1. It's in the Constitution;
2. State declares Bankruptcy;
3. Constitutional Provision "X" is viewed by Bankruptcy Court as being a burden on the Bankruptcy proceedings;
4. Bankruptcy Judge vetoes Constitution.
Think about it:
"Law enforcement costs due to gang violence, terrorism and senseless gun crimes are expensive epidemics that plague the coffers of our State, draining money from our Constitutionally Mandated Health Care. As such, as Bankruptcy Judge in this proceeding, I'm nullifying the [2nd? depends on the State] Amendment to the State Constitution permitting the citizens of this state to keep and bear arms. Citizens must turn in all firearms after these proceedings are concluded."
How is that any different than yanking Health Care out of a Constitutional Provision?
I hate Health Care and Socialism... but if a State put them in the Constitution, then it seems to me that the only body that can pull it back out would be the State legislature proposing it and then putting it to public referendum.
Judges CANNOT strike the State Constitution, any more than SCOTUS can strike the Constitution of the United States.
Actually I have no problem with this.
If a state declares bankruptcy, their entire constitution should be invalidated. They should become a territory and have to reincorporate as a state or several states.
If you screwed up so bad as to need bankruptcy, we should reorganize you like any company.
-
That actually makes sense. And no golden parachutes for the leaders, either.
-
If a state declares bankruptcy, their entire constitution should be invalidated. They should become a territory and have to reincorporate as a state or several states.
If you screwed up so bad as to need bankruptcy, we should reorganize you like any company.
You know, this idea seems to have merit . . . a lot of merit.
(Territories don't have voting congressional delegations in the US Congress, do they? >:D )
-
Neither is education.
Not so. Most states codify public education in their constitutions.
-
Actually I have no problem with this.
If a state declares bankruptcy, their entire constitution should be invalidated. They should become a territory and have to reincorporate as a state or several states.
If you screwed up so bad as to need bankruptcy, we should reorganize you like any company.
I think this makes a lot of sense, but it's still worrisome. I'm not confident that a newly constituted state turn out any better than the old state.
The political forces that drive states into bankruptcy won't disappear overnight. Any given state that fell hard for lefty foolishness and wrecked its finances will likely still be driven by lefty foolishness while it's reincorporating itself. Can you imagine giving the people who ran California and Illinois into the ground a clean slate to remake their states however they want?
-
http://www.cnbc.com/id/40791768/Alabama_Town_s_Failed_Pension_Is_a_Warning
I read this story in the NYT a few weeks ago. I wonder if this is a harbringer of the future. Of course, most of us on this board don't have a pension to worry about the payor going bankrupt. The exposure for financial success or ruin has been largely shifted onto the worker by virtue of the 401(k) and other similar forms of retirement savings.
-
http://www.cnbc.com/id/40791768/Alabama_Town_s_Failed_Pension_Is_a_Warning
I read this story in the NYT a few weeks ago. I wonder if this is a harbringer of the future. Of course, most of us on this board don't have a pension to worry about the payor going bankrupt. The exposure for financial success or ruin has been largely shifted onto the worker by virtue of the 401(k) and other similar forms of retirement savings.
And I have no problem with the people who screwed over the companies or cities or states to get those pensions getting screwed over when they fail. (UAW, AFSCME, SEIU)
People will whine and cry how its not the worker's fault, but it is. He joined the union, they demanded these wages and pensions, he benfited. Now he can bear the risks of his own poor judgement.
-
Actually I have no problem with this.
If a state declares bankruptcy, their entire constitution should be invalidated. They should become a territory and have to reincorporate as a state or several states.
If you screwed up so bad as to need bankruptcy, we should reorganize you like any company.
And what if the FedGov declares bankruptcy?
Do we invalidate the COTUS as a result?
-
And I have no problem with the people who screwed over the companies or cities or states to get those pensions getting screwed over when they fail. (UAW, AFSCME, SEIU)
People will whine and cry how its not the worker's fault, but it is. He joined the union, they demanded these wages and pensions, he benfited. Now he can bear the risks of his own poor judgement.
I wonder if we would be making the same argument if Federal pensions; for example for military service, failed.
-
The politicians put us in a bind. Because of their machiavellian mendacity someone has to get gored. The issue isn't whether, it's WhO. It's either to going to be the recipients of public monies--in this case pension holders--or the taxpayers.
-
And what if the FedGov declares bankruptcy?
Do we invalidate the COTUS as a result?
FedGov can't declare bankruptcy, there would be no courts as a higher authority to reorganize.
I wonder if we would be making the same argument if Federal pensions; for example for military service, failed.
I would make the same argument and except the military from that. I am more than willing to state that I value their service more and would willingly honor their agreements. Further, there's no military union that has lobbied the government for said benefits.
-
I recall reading about a state law in Michigan, pushed in by the public employee unions, that makes it illegal for a city to declare bankruptcy without first asking the state for permission. Bankruptcy would be better for the cities, and better for their residents and taxpayers, but not for the retired public employees living on gluttonous pensions.
-
FedGov can't declare bankruptcy, there would be no courts as a higher authority to reorganize.
FedGov would never need to declare bankruptcy, because they have control over the currency and could choose to inflate rather than default.
-
I recall reading about a state law in Michigan, pushed in by the public employee unions, that makes it illegal for a city to declare bankruptcy without first asking the state for permission. Bankruptcy would be better for the cities, and better for their residents and taxpayers, but not for the retired public employees living on gluttonous pensions.
If a city has no money, no capacity to borrow, no property to sell, and can't squeeze whatever tax base it has left to cover the expenses, formal declaration of bankrupty might be moot.
To borrow an old proverb, you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.
-
To borrow an old proverb, you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.
This is the essence of the problem. Whatever promises we've made, and however much reverence we may have for those promises, what happens when we just don't have enough money to go around?
Bankruptcy is the usual solution, and I see no reason not to employ it here.
-
I would make the same argument and except the military from that. I am more than willing to state that I value their service more and would willingly honor their agreements.
What about the police? Do you hate police officers?! What about the firemen!?!?
Y U HATE FIREMEN?
:P
-
I agree with the notion that if a state declares bankruptcy, it is dissolved as a corporation. But I don't think it should be allowed to reincorporate. The territory should be divvied up in equal landmass portions by the surrounding states.
Do I hear any bidders for Detroit and Flint??
-
Do I hear any bidders for Detroit and Flint??
*crickets*
-
We've been trying to dump Detroit off onto Canada for years. Grampster may have just found a way to pull it off.
:lol:
-
Oregon would be ok taking Northern Cali... Southern Cali, you're on your own.............
-
Oregon would be ok taking Northern Cali... Southern Cali, you're on your own.............
Isn't Southern California already a de facto part of Baja?
-
State bankruptcy is no panacea.
For starters, a State that ends up in Federal receivership status will be a de facto judicial tyranny, run by a Federal magistrate (probably a liberal). That what anyone here wants?
Secondly, a run of state bankruptcies would destroy the vast municipal bond market. Who will ever hand over serious money to a state or municipality once this precedent has been set?
Point is, these problems were precipitated by years of leftist malfeasance; the "solution" is NOT abrogating constitutional order and trustable financial markets. The answer lies in sober austerity, no matter how deep or how long--if we want to keep any semblance of republican governance.
-
State bankruptcy is no panacea.
...
Secondly, a run of state bankruptcies would destroy the vast municipal bond market. Who will ever hand over serious money to a state or municipality once this precedent has been set?
Just like all those runs of corporate bankruptcies destroyed the corporate bond market... right?
-
Secondly, a run of state bankruptcies would destroy the vast municipal bond market. Who will ever hand over serious money to a state or municipality once this precedent has been set?
Why, you don't need people willing to buy bonds when you can use governmental force to seize their money, property, etc...
-
The answer lies in sober austerity, no matter how deep or how long--if we want to keep any semblance of republican governance.
This, cut until they make ends meet.
The results of DEEP cuts into "vital services" and how life doesn't come to a screeching halt, might be enlightening to a lot of people.
-
Just like all those runs of corporate bankruptcies destroyed the corporate bond market... right?
Be thankful you weren't a GM bondholder (were you?).
The Obama gov't set a very bad precedent there. We learned that when politics goes as bad as ours has you can find cooperative bankruptcy courts to do the bidding of the Most High.
-
California has a 21 Billion dollar budget deficit, in addition it has a 500 (five hundred billion) dollar liability with unfunded pension payments (over time) for state workers.
California spends 46 billion on eduction. That's 54% of the budget.
Here's my idea. Get California out of the education business entirely. Savings = 46 billion a year. So, even if there are no other cuts, and really there could be, California goes from 21 B in the hole to a 25 B surplus.
And yes, by law, California must spend X amount on education per year...but that can be set aside by the bankruptcy court.
Next, tell the unions they will get 50 cents on the dollar on their pensions paid out over 20 years, or a whole lot less as they get a bronze handshake as they leave government service as their jobs will be privatized and their state pensions de-funded. It would be possible. If the Governor or the court can take down the teacher's Unions no other union stands a chance.
That's 12.5 B a year leaving room for a 12.5 B tax cut. If more things can be cut the better of course.
-
If a state declares bankruptcy, their entire constitution should be invalidated. They should become a territory and have to reincorporate as a state or several states.
Under new management, and after selling off any nonessential assets. (With certain restrictions; DoI gets first shot at existing state parks, etc.)
Splitting California into north and south might not make the south any smarter, but it would remove their burden from the north, effectively restricting the suffering to those responsible for it. By the same token, the new State of Chicago wouldn't be dragging Illinois down any more.
-
If California is to be split, I'd rather it be coastal and inland instead of north and south.
If it goes north and south the south will be dominated by L.A. and the north by San Francisco. My way groups the blue areas with with each other and leaves the red areas apart.
This map shows county by county. The brighter the color the more one way the voting went. So you see the coastal area is dark blue and the inland areas slightly purplish.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-personal.umich.edu%2F%7Emejn%2Felection%2F2008%2Fcountymappurpler1024.png&hash=44a41fb76f1986379890f8b05c33796f12c40cfa)
There would still be work to do but it would be a lot easier.
-
Splitting California into north and south might not make the south any smarter, but it would remove their burden from the north, effectively restricting the suffering to those responsible for it. By the same token, the new State of Chicago wouldn't be dragging Illinois down any more.
Wasn't there a discussion a while back about the creation of city-states once the population of the given city exceeded 50% of the state total?
*goes digging* Nope, it was something I wrote up on another site...
With how large certain cities become (N.Y., L.A., Chicago, etc.), it would arguably seem that these cities as a whole acrue an out of proportion ammount of political control with regards to state matters (making the assumption that the populace of cities tend to vote more as a unified group). Would it then make sense to have a clause in the constitution prescribing that when a single city exceeds, say, 50% of the entire state's total population, that it is then split off as an independant district, ala Washington D.C.?
This discussion actually came up amongst my friends a while back, the general concensus was that exceptionally large cities do tend to skew an entire state's politics. Ie. the entire city votes one way on an issue, where as the rest of the state votes another, but by virtue of the city's size it's votes carry the day and the rest of the state winds up being dragged right along behind it.
As for California, can we just strip the bottom half of anything useful that isn't welded down (kinda like a Navy ship getting decommissioned), cut all the power lines and overland access points and give it to Mexico, "as a gift"?
-
Well a 50% threshold would suck for California. Cal has a pop of 37 mil, L.A. is the biggest city at just over 4 mil so there's no chance of that happening. Even if the state pop grew by 20 mil and it was ALL in L.A. that still wouldn't pass the 50% threshold.
Lets make it 10% for cities. OR 15% for contiguous urban areas. =D
-
Well a 50% threshold would suck for California. Cal has a pop of 37 mil, L.A. is the biggest city at just over 4 mil so there's no chance of that happening. Even if the state pop grew by 20 mil and it was ALL in L.A. that still wouldn't pass the 50% threshold.
Lets make it 10% for cities. OR 15% for contiguous urban areas. =D
Good point. It was just a number I has tossed up during that discussion a while back. *checks* October 2009 to be semi-precise.
-
Wasn't there a discussion a while back about the creation of city-states once the population of the given city exceeded 50% of the state total?
I'm going to have to go with Warren's numbers; as we see too often, 10-15% in each of two or three urban areas can force the rest of the state to do some really stupid things. I'd say mandatory separation at 15%, with an option of voluntary secession at the lesser of 8% or 2 million people.
Look at Texas, for example; D/FW is 6.7 million people, Austin's metro area is 1.7 mil, Houston's 5.9 mil, and San Antonio's 2.1 mil. That's actually a majority of the state when taken together, but only D/FW and Houston metro areas actually have more than 15% of the population each. Essentially, the 13 million people in those two cities can dictate how millions of other Texans must live, and there's nothing that, say, all of West Texas can do about it.
For an illustration of this, look at the Texas State Senate districts; of 31 senators, Houston metro area has 5-7, (five solely in Houston, and another two whose districts are primarily within the metro area) D/FW 7-8, (same issue) and all of West Texas has two if you include El Paso's.
Since Houston is in East Texas and Dallas is just barely out of the same region, their climate, geography and economy are vastly different from what West Texas or even most of Central Texas deals with, and letting them force decisions on the entire state makes about as much sense as allowing Houston to annex Orr MN and apply their code of ordinances there. (even if they did add a 15th council seat so Orr could be represented)
As for California, can we just strip the bottom half of anything useful that isn't welded down (kinda like a Navy ship getting decommissioned), cut all the power lines and overland access points and give it to Mexico, "as a gift"?
Detcord and oxygen lances make "welded down" a rather silly reason for leaving stuff behind...and we should keep the mineral rights.
-
I love the way you guys hate on SoCal. Too bad most of you detractors know nothing about the place. C'mon, guys, America's problems are NOT confined to L.A. or S.F.
If California is to be split, I'd rather it be coastal and inland instead of north and south.
If it goes north and south the south will be dominated by L.A. and the north by San Francisco. My way groups the blue areas with with each other and leaves the red areas apart.
This map shows county by county. The brighter the color the more one way the voting went. So you see the coastal area is dark blue and the inland areas slightly purplish.
I think you need to read some Victor Davis Hanson. If you did you'd know that the interior of California isn't populated by Tea Party patriots but, mostly, by impoverished Central Americans increasingly living in shanty towns and pulling in gov't checks while they watch the farmlands dry up.
L.A., actually, taken as greater L.A. has far more four million people. Try doubling that, and then some.
I don't like what's happened to my home city either, but we can thank the Federal government for most of the changes. L.A. has turned into a Mexican city, and the State legislature exploits this reality.
-
Yeah, if a state goes bankrupt they should invalidate their state Constitution and be absorbed by other states?
Are you serious? You will end with half the country being a Federal protectorate--i.e., a "reservation" for Legacy Americans.
Bankruptcy is a ruse that will produce nothing but a diminution of liberty and a subversion of contract law. The answer is to balance the books by making the draconian cuts that are necessary and moral. Just as with ObamaCare, which predicates itself on The Forty Million, this problem largely resides in cheaters, slackers, and trespassers.
-
The answer is to balance the books by making the draconian cuts that are necessary and moral.
And the people who are living off the CA government will go to nearby states and begin draining them of cash.
-
Regardless of the negatives states and fed.gov had better get off the dime and put provisions in place for cities and states to seek the cover of bankruptcy. Cities are lining up as we speak and states are not too far behind. The absence of a bankruptcy process will eventually create chaos as pension funds try to suck more out of the taxpayer, states try to shed their responsibilities, and fed.gov gathers more power to itself. Solutions are available and viable but not politically acceptable.
Here in SC the teacher's retirement fund is grossly (I repeat, grossly) underfunded. Educrats solution is the suck more out of the taxpayer. My solution is quite simpleminded. Deem the pension play whole at whatever the current funding is and adjust benefits to current funding. That is all. Teacher retirees will bitch and moan but so what. We've got officially 9.7% unemployment. The real figure is pushing 20%. I don't see how we can morally stick a gun in the face of what's left of the employed to "fully fund" a retirement program that is far too generous and expensive.
We've only seen the beginning of trouble if we don't get adults to address the problem. The good news is the ship of fools we call congress is actually thinking about what Joe and Martha Sixpack see coming down the road.
-
The answer need not be bankruptcy. We do have electoral processes whereby we can change the tax laws or even the State constitution. We also have the power of political organization, mass demonstrations, even civil disobedience. People do NOT have to just keep paying into an unfair system.
California cannot deal with its budget problems except by going through THE TRUTH. That truth is that one way or another we will need to enormously cut gov't services, re-negotiate pension agreements, and force the Federal gov't to deal with illegal immigration. On the last we heard just the other day that welfare services for illegals and their kids in L.A. County last year cost $1.6 billion--that is without counting education which in L.A. Country has a yearly budget of around $7B.
Putting enormous power into the hands of Federal bankruptcy courts is to begin to operate by para-Constitutional means. This is exactly what The Left wants and has always wanted.
-
Point is, these problems were precipitated by years of leftist malfeasance; the "solution" is NOT abrogating constitutional order and trustable financial markets. The answer lies in sober austerity, no matter how deep or how long--if we want to keep any semblance of republican governance.
Sober austerity is a non-answer when the underlying problem is that the debt burden resulting from pre-existing contractual commitments exceeds the state's ability to pay, and the economy is so deep into the tank that attempts to offset the shortfall by raising taxes will accomplish nothing but making the problem worse.
The problem with riding bubbles is that, eventually, bubbles tend to burst.
-
Bankruptcy--without addressing the underlying reasons for the shortfall on all levels--is only a Band-Aid.
-
I was born in Flint. Haven't been back there since I was 16 (~1967), but have seen photos since.
I'd bid on it, but only if I can use it for artillery target practice.
-
Oregon would be ok taking Northern Cali... Southern Cali, you're on your own.........
And Oregon would promptly turn Northern California into another version of Southern California, given how screwed up we are.
-
How fabulous - 30 years ago someone agreed to take a government job that pays a lot less than private sector equivalents, because of a contract that specified good retirement pay. Now everyone wants to screw that guy out of what he bargained for. The "free market" doesn't work if you don't honour your contracts for lifetimes of work, folks.
The article is ridiculous. States can't be bankrupt in the same way an individual can. No one can raid the state's assets without its permission, even where the state defaults; that's the primary purpose of bankruptcy, so having it for a state is just silly. States are sovereign - all you need to do is a quick canvas of rights associated with sovereign debt and you'll see why the whole premise of the article is silly.
-
We've only seen the beginning of trouble if we don't get adults to address the problem. The good news is the ship of fools we call congress is actually thinking about what Joe and Martha Sixpack see coming down the road.
Uh...no. Congress is making some noises along those lines, but it is just that, noise. I fully expect them to go back to business as usual later this year. To expect anything else out of them is just naive in my opinion.
The folks that call the shots in Congress have not changed.
Our Dear Leader and the Congress do not have the requisite courage to properly address the issues that beset us. I doubt the leaders of the various States that are in similar trouble are brave enough to solve their issues, either.
Folks, we are in deep doo-doo. Hang on tight, it's going to be a very bumpy ride.
-
How fabulous - 30 years ago someone agreed to take a government job that pays a lot less than private sector equivalents, because of a contract that specified good retirement pay. Now everyone wants to screw that guy out of what he bargained for. The "free market" doesn't work if you don't honour your contracts for lifetimes of work, folks.
What happens to labor contracts of a company that goes bankrupt? If someone is going to get screwed, it should be the leeches government workers, not the taxpayers.
Maybe we'll get fewer leeches government workers that way rather than fewer taxpayers.
-
Also, maybe we'll get truth in government financing of worker cost AND a move to self-financed retirement funds by government workers so they don't get screwed again in the future.
WIN WIN WIN!
-
The real question is, what happens when the Federal system is forced into insolvency?
-
The real question is, what happens when the Federal system is forced into insolvency?
Inflation.
-
HYPERinflation.
FTFY
-
Inflation, broken promises, coercion.
-
What happens to labor contracts of a company that goes bankrupt? If someone is going to get screwed, it should be the leeches government workers, not the taxpayers.
Maybe we'll get fewer leeches government workers that way rather than fewer taxpayers.
Slight thread drift here....on the subject of Armed Polite Soceity:
I work for the government. In addition to the hours I put into the Army Reserve, I work full time as a Department of the Army civilian. I have worked for them for almost 10 years now, managing to work myself to lower-middle management. I did it the same way private sector folks do. I worked extra hours, learned new skills on my own time, and plaid inter-office politics when needed. I now get paid for 40 of the 52 or so hours a week I work. I have a company backed 401k (TSP account) and a pension. Yes I know it's the taxpayers money, but the truth is, I work damn hard for my money, and do it using skills lots of folks (even folks on this board) don't have. And I'll be pretty pissed if someone tries to get the government to default on my contract. Maybe you want to think about who you're calling names.
And if not, come call me a leech to my face.
[/thread drift]
you may now return to your regularly scheduled doom-saying.
-
The question isn't about whether government employees should get their pensions, it's whether or not they can. Reality, not morality.
The money just isn't there to fulfill all of the promises that have been made. So what do we do now?
And this'll sound harsh, but the fact that you worked hard doesn't really enter into the equation. There are plenty of people who work hard all across the spectrum and still watch as the company/government/whatever goes under and takes the pension promises with it.
Ultimately the buck stops with you. It's not enough just to secure a promise, you must evaluate whether that promise is realistic, whether it can/will be fulfilled. An awful lot of the public employee pension promises just weren't realistic, same as many of the UAW contracts from GM.
-
Slight thread drift here....on the subject of Armed Polite Soceity:
I work for the government. In addition to the hours I put into the Army Reserve, I work full time as a Department of the Army civilian. I have worked for them for almost 10 years now, managing to work myself to lower-middle management. I did it the same way private sector folks do. I worked extra hours, learned new skills on my own time, and plaid inter-office politics when needed. I now get paid for 40 of the 52 or so hours a week I work. I have a company backed 401k (TSP account) and a pension. Yes I know it's the taxpayers money, but the truth is, I work damn hard for my money, and do it using skills lots of folks (even folks on this board) don't have. And I'll be pretty pissed if someone tries to get the government to default on my contract. Maybe you want to think about who you're calling names.
And if not, come call me a leech to my face.
[/thread drift]
you may now return to your regularly scheduled doom-saying.
I'm sure you work very hard for your money. Not all do. Most are overcompensated:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/federal-pay-continues-rapid-ascent/
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cato.org%2Fimages%2Fhomepage%2F200908_edwards_blog2.jpg&hash=b6f8e2390a50834135d33f407d885c40595dc4f1)
It's no longer a sacrifice to work for the government. I will often use the term leeches when I speak of those who have been gaming the already generous pension system. I crossed out the leeches that I had originally posted alone, so it was an act of politeness to replace the word I wanted to use for the more polite term. I left my original wording with the edit when I decided to act more politely with a less offensive phrasing.
Further, although Federal pay is still too much, the greater problem lies with the state workers. My ire is directed most at them.
-
HTG,
Not really. Not at a federal level, anyways. The money for the pensions exists. This, like cutting cops first, is a media tactic designed to stir up and factionize the taxpayer so we don't actually look at where money goes. But I would be willing to talk about debts vs. income and worthwhile projects. I do realize the need to cut back on .gov money spending.
I was objecting to Mak's name calling.
As far as company backed promises, if a .gov is so insolvent that it can't pay it's contractual promises, then we need to seriously consider dismantling said .gov. If the Federal Government of the United States ceases to exist, I'll understand where my pension went. If, however, my pension dissappears, and we still have federal Pell grants, and the NEA, well, that's BS. And that's where states are at. They're threatening to cut pensions and cops and schools, because they don't want to cut a myriad of other stupid programs.
-
If someone is going to get screwed, it should be the leeches government workers, not the taxpayers.
Is this how we feel about all gov. workers? That their nothing but leaches that deserve to be screwed out of their pensions because of politicians?
I'm guessing no one hear would complain about the 55 y.o. fire fighter about to retire being told he's unable because the state already spend his pension money or the cop who got shot losing his pension from his city, because he's just a leach that didn't deserve that money anyway.
???
So because you work for the government means you deserve nothing after 20 years of hard work if some politicians played fast and loose with taxpayer money? What the hell, private CEO's got millions of dollars in "bonuses" after taxpayers had to bail them out of insolvency.
So work for the state gov. = get no money if it fails.
Work for private enterprise, fail miserably = BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of dollars from the FedGov
I know no one was for the bailouts on this board but doesn't this seem a bit wrong?
-
Not really. Not at a federal level, anyways. The money for the pensions exists.
Say what?! The Federal government is flat broke! It has to borrow more than a trillion dollars every year just to break even. This is possible presently, but it will not remain possible indefinitely. There will come a point where FedGov cannot borrow to make up the difference any longer, and when that happens promises of all sorts will go unfulfilled.
I fail to see how the promises made to pensioners are any different from the myriad of other promises that will go empty.
-
Is this how we feel about all gov. workers? That their nothing but leaches that deserve to be screwed out of their pensions because of politicians?
I'm guessing no one hear would complain about the 55 y.o. fire fighter about to retire being told he's unable because the state already spend his pension money or the cop who got shot losing his pension from his city, because he's just a leach that didn't deserve that money anyway.
???
So because you work for the government means you deserve nothing after 20 years of hard work if some politicians played fast and loose with taxpayer money? What the hell, private CEO's got millions of dollars in "bonuses" after taxpayers had to bail them out of insolvency.
So work for the state gov. = get no money if it fails.
Work for private enterprise, fail miserably = BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of dollars from the FedGov
I know no one was for the bailouts on this board but doesn't this seem a bit wrong?
Government bailing out private companies is wrong.
Doesn't mean we should bail out the failing government pensions, too.
If it makes you feel better, I think all politician pensions should be recinded as well. Those involved in the scam should bear the brunt of the consequences.
You don't have to worry, I'm sure the taxpayer is getting screwed no matter how this is resolved. (And if we decide just to ignore, total Weimar-style collapse will be the resolution.)
-
The total liabilities of the Fed.gov is in the tens of trillions, IIRC.
We're talking gov't worker pensions, SS, etc.
To be blunt about it:
It ain't gonna happen.
Either fed.gov will renege or it will inflate the currency so that the promised dollars will be on the check, but they are worth 1/10th what they used to be.
We can talk morality all day long, but the actuarial tables are what future gov't pensioners need to get angry at. If you bet on the gov't pension being there and playing a vital role in your retirement, you bet wrong.
As for state gov't pensions, if they were valued the same way the private sector values pensions, all would be underfunded. They, too, are never going to pay out what they promised.
Ditto for social security.
Say what?! The Federal government is flat broke! It has to borrow more than a trillion dollars every year just to break even. This is possible presently, but it will not remain possible indefinitely. There will come a point where FedGov cannot borrow to make up the difference any longer, and when that happens promises of all sorts will go unfulfilled.
I fail to see how the promises made to pensioners are any different from the myriad of other promises that will go empty.
If the market decided it no longer wants to buy treasuries or will only buy them at 2-3-4-5X current rates, the party will have stopped.