Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: California AND bust


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: California AND bust Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: California AND bust - 11/8/2011 6:16:25 AM   
Iamsemisweet


Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline 		I am far from a conservative, rule.  But facts are facts.  The banks are only tangentially involved in this one, in the sense that had they continued to pay 8 percent interest, the Ponzi scheme would have lasted a little longer.  It was still largely unsustainable.

Here is a quote from the article regarding your "deferred compensation" and "lesser pay" argument:

In 2010, for instance, the state spent $6 billion on fewer than 30,000 guards and other prison-system employees. A prison guard who started his career at the age of 45 could retire after five years with a pension that very nearly equaled his former salary. The head parole psychiatrist for the California prison system was the state’s highest-paid public employee; in 2010 he’d made $838,706.
So, how much compensation did the 45 year old prison guard "defer" in order to be able to retire in 5 years?  How much more money would the parole psychiatrist have made in private practice?
Certainly states or municipalities bankrupting out of public employee pensions is unfair and a frightening thought, since real people rely on those payments.  But to sacrifice the future and present services of states like CA for these obligations is pretty frightening too.

By the way, your acquaintance who was planning on retiring at 45 and now can't?  Cry me a river.
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

The particular issue that sweet is discussing is about government unions having used their political influence for years in order to get better and better "pension" deals, so that it is now to the point that it is unsustainable.



Typical conservative-speak, and utter nonsense.

Retirement plans are deferred compensation, they are not some gift given to employees.

Many of these people accept lower wages because of that.

I know someone who worked in a city job since he was in high school.  He just turned 41 and was planning on retiring at 45.

Then the city decided to try to push through a plan to not allow anyone to collect the pensions they worked for until the age of 57 and there has been a protracted lawsuit regarding it.



< Message edited by Iamsemisweet -- 11/8/2011 6:35:09 AM >

_____________________________

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: California AND bust - 11/8/2011 6:59:32 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Iamsemisweet
By the way, your acquaintance who was planning on retiring at 45 and now can't?  Cry me a river.


Well your "cry me a river" statement epitomizes the problem.

These people took jobs and were promised certain benefits.

How is it fair for someone to devote 30 years of their life counting on retirement benefits and then to have them stripped away?

(in reply to Iamsemisweet)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: California AND bust - 11/8/2011 7:04:05 AM   
ArizonaBossMan


Posts: 380
Joined: 2/9/2011
Status: offline 		Dodd. Frank. Clinton. Start there. Connect the dots. Oh how the mean ole banks HAD to give loans to people who could not qualify. Why that's red lining, you know, make up stuff and make it against the law. Then when they can't pay back the loans? No worries! see uncle o'bama! What a chump I am for following all the rules. Doing it the right way. Not in obama's amerika!

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: California AND bust - 11/8/2011 7:04:46 AM   
FirstQuaker


Posts: 787
Joined: 3/19/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirstQuaker

If I wanted to destroy capitalism, I could not do a better job of it, then the banksters are doing. Who in their right mind would attempt to accumulate any cashy money? Even the drug lords are converting it to tangible things whenever possible.

Basically they tax everyone who uses money, and then use inflation as a "property tax" on the stuff left in one place for any time.

California is going to discover the finer points of this.

The particular issue that sweet is discussing is about government unions having used their political influence for years in order to get better and better "pension" deals, so that it is now to the point that it is unsustainable.

This is not a "banker" issue.

Firm



Really? So if you banned all unions, you think the pension fund problems in the US woudl disappear?

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: California AND bust - 11/8/2011 7:15:04 AM   
Iamsemisweet


Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline 		My comment is hardly the problem.  The problem is a pension scheme that allows someone to retire at 45.

I don't know why this is hard to understand.  THERE IS NO MONEY TO PAY THESE PENSIONS.  1 Trillion Dollars is unfunded.  It doesn't matter what people were "promised".  Taxpayers expect certain benefits too, like paved streets and public safety workers, now.   Instead, their money is going to pay pensions, and greatly affecting their own ability to retire.  I imagine more and more local governments will be driven to bankruptcy, and some states will be looking into it, too.

In doing a little research, my own state is probably in better shape than most when it comes to public pensions, because of the way they are funded in part, but also because the retired firefighters and police aren't living as long as expected. 
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

Iamsemisweet
By the way, your acquaintance who was planning on retiring at 45 and now can't?  Cry me a river.


Well your "cry me a river" statement epitomizes the problem.

These people took jobs and were promised certain benefits.

How is it fair for someone to devote 30 years of their life counting on retirement benefits and then to have them stripped away?



< Message edited by Iamsemisweet -- 11/8/2011 7:28:17 AM >

_____________________________

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: California AND bust - 11/8/2011 7:19:11 AM   
Iamsemisweet


Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline 		What the fuck are you blathering about?  Do you ever stick to the topic?
quote:

ORIGINAL: ArizonaBossMan

Dodd. Frank. Clinton. Start there. Connect the dots. Oh how the mean ole banks HAD to give loans to people who could not qualify. Why that's red lining, you know, make up stuff and make it against the law. Then when they can't pay back the loans? No worries! see uncle o'bama! What a chump I am for following all the rules. Doing it the right way. Not in obama's amerika!


_____________________________

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.

(in reply to ArizonaBossMan)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: California AND bust - 11/8/2011 7:27:05 AM   
FirstQuaker


Posts: 787
Joined: 3/19/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

I am far from a conservative, rule.  But facts are facts.  The banks are only tangentially involved in this one, in the sense that had they continued to pay 8 percent interest, the Ponzi scheme would have lasted a little longer.  It was still largely unsustainable.



Be that as it may the Wall Street collapse in 2008 caused every pension fund and scheme private or public in the US to take some serious losses.and I doubt the failings among US corporate pensions funds and the losses in every sort of savings/investment/retirement scheme across the US can be laid at the doors of either unions, or the local politicians -

quote:

Pension plan funding has been a notable casualty of the liquidity crisis, and the ensuing deficits have been an unwelcome addition to the burdens borne by struggling US companies at this time. As of 31 December 2008, pension plans among members of Standard & Poor’s 1500 had $1.21 trillion of assets and $1.62 trillion of liabilities, according to a Mercer report. This compares unfavourably to 2007, when pension plan assets totalled $1.66 trillion against liabilities of about $1.6 trillion. Pension plan assets had admittedly stabilised during December 2008, but the December decline in corporate bond yields pushed plan liabilities higher, according to Deloitte research. The end result works out as a $409bn deficit on US pension plans, a shock reversal from the $60bn surplus seen a year earlier. The pension expense recorded in companies’ financial statements is therefore likely to increase in 2009, while corporate earnings continue to decline. Consequently, for plan sponsors and fiduciaries, certain steps will be required to mitigate financial risks.


Pension Plan Deficits – The Impact On US Corporations

If it were just the public sector pension funds, or just the coroprate ones, or just the IRAs, etc you might blame them individually, but when the whole lot have the same problems you have to look a little higher up the financial food chain.

The investment vehicles they all use, the regulation which they all operate under, and the inflation and interest rates they all have eating them, all come from one source and that is the Wall Street/Washington DC axis.

(in reply to Iamsemisweet)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: California AND bust - 11/8/2011 7:47:27 AM   
Fightdirecto


Posts: 1101
Joined: 8/3/2004
Status: offline 		There has been a continuing argument that one of the biggest causes for the financial crisis in California is NOT pensions - it is the easy ability (by California's initiative process) to get a statewide ballot question passed requiring the California state government to do something - and not providing any mechanism for paying for it. Or, conversely, a statewide ballot question requiring the California state to stop doing something - and not providing any mechanism to make up for the revenue lost (i.e. Proposition 13, which capped property taxes but made no provision for coming up with the funds lost).

In short, the popular demand(s) by short-sighted or single-issue California voters for a service (or services) inserted into the California State Constitution - and the equally popular demand by those same voters not to have to pay for it.

_____________________________

"I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.””
- Ellie Wiesel

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: California AND bust - 11/8/2011 7:54:04 AM   
Iamsemisweet


Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline 		No doubt that also contributed, fight.  People wanted services, but not to pay for them.  Michael Lewis also addresses that:

Home of the Free . . . Lunch A compelling book called Cal­ifornia Crackup describes this problem more generally. It was written by a pair of journalists and nonpartisan think-tank scholars, Joe Mathews and Mark Paul, and they explain, among other things, why Arnold Schwarze­neg­ger’s experience as governor was going to be unlike any other experience in his career: he was never going to win. California had organized itself, not accidentally, into highly partisan legislative districts. It elected highly partisan people to office and then required these people to reach a two-thirds majority to enact any new tax or meddle with big spending decisions. On the off chance that they found some common ground, it could be pulled out from under them by voters through the initiative process. Throw in term limits—no elected official now serves in California government long enough to fully understand it—and you have a recipe for generating maximum contempt for elected officials. Politicians are elected to get things done and are prevented by the system from doing it, leading the people to grow even more disgusted with them. “The vicious cycle of contempt,” as Mark Paul calls it. California state government was designed mainly to maximize the likelihood that voters will continue to despise the people they elect. But when you look below the surface, he adds, the system is actually very good at giving Californians what they want. “What all the polls show,” says Paul, “is that people want services and not to pay for them. And that’s exactly what they have now got.” As much as they claimed to despise their government, the citizens of California shared its defining trait: a need for debt. The average Californian, in 2011, had debts of $78,000 against an income of $43,000. The behavior was unsustainable, but, in its way, for the people, it works brilliantly. For their leaders, even in the short term, it works less well. They ride into office on great false hopes and quickly discover they can do nothing to justify those hopes.


_____________________________

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.

(in reply to Fightdirecto)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: California AND bust - 11/8/2011 8:00:34 AM   
tj444


Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

There has been a continuing argument that one of the biggest causes for the financial crisis in California is NOT pensions - it is the easy ability (by California's initiative process) to get a statewide ballot question passed requiring the California state government to do something - and not providing any mechanism for paying for it. Or, conversely, a statewide ballot question requiring the California state to stop doing something - and not providing any mechanism to make up for the revenue lost (i.e. Proposition 13, which capped property taxes but made no provision for coming up with the funds lost).

In short, the popular demand(s) by short-sighted or single-issue California voters for a service (or services) inserted into the California State Constitution - and the equally popular demand by those same voters not to have to pay for it.

About prop 13,.. they come up with funds to compensate for that, dont you worry about that. You ever try to build a house in CA??? Try to and find out exactly how greedy the fuckers can be.. The minimum from what i have seen is $45,000 in tax/fees before you even get a building permit, I have read it can go up to $100,000 in some cities. One city even has a kangaroo rat tax.. wtf?? And try to put a solar system on you house, in Dana Point the building permit to do that costs $13,000. Sort of defeats the purpose of solar, doesnt it? lol New homes are cash cows to these fuckers.. And some of the city halls are full of corruption.. read up on Bell, CA for a little insight into that..

Imo, its a combination of all sorts of reasons and yes, rich pensions are one of the major reasons.. My former Dom is a teacher in CA and he bragged to me about how much he makes and the pension he will get when he retires in his mid-50s..

_____________________________

As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”

(in reply to Fightdirecto)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: California AND bust - 11/8/2011 8:23:34 AM   
FirstQuaker


Posts: 787
Joined: 3/19/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

There has been a continuing argument that one of the biggest causes for the financial crisis in California is NOT pensions - it is the easy ability (by California's initiative process) to get a statewide ballot question passed requiring the California state government to do something - and not providing any mechanism for paying for it. Or, conversely, a statewide ballot question requiring the California state to stop doing something - and not providing any mechanism to make up for the revenue lost (i.e. Proposition 13, which capped property taxes but made no provision for coming up with the funds lost).

In short, the popular demand(s) by short-sighted or single-issue California voters for a service (or services) inserted into the California State Constitution - and the equally popular demand by those same voters not to have to pay for it.


Oh that is certainly part of California's public sector fiscal problems, along with the overly large amount of political power certain unions have on both sides of the political aisle, and the general lack of responsibility all types of politicians have there .

But that does not make a pension fund have less value then the money put into over the years. If you put your money under your mattress it is still worth less every day. and even if you put it in an IRA or a pension fund you have quite likely been loosing money, when you calculate inflation and taxes against the at best modest return on your investment.

And California's pubic sector savings  has been looted by everyone from Enron on down to the subprime "bundlers" during the last ten years.

This did not happen because of California voters, or California unions, or California politicians -
quote:

The state has three major pension systems - one covering state and many local workers, one for teachers and one for University of California employees - and collectively assets dropped from $476.2 billion during the 2007-08 fiscal year to $340.2 billion a year later.


California led nation in pension fund losses

Certainly California is going to have to deal with it politically, and watching the lawn order contingent tell their police and fire department role models and prison guard henchmen that  their retirement money is getting chopped in half will be rich, (never mind the teachers and sanitation workers) but  the taxpayer is still going to be footing the retirement bills, either through welfare or through a pension.



(in reply to Fightdirecto)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: California AND bust - 11/8/2011 8:55:48 AM   
Iamsemisweet


Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline 		First Quaker, obviously a lot of the problem is that the pension systems were based on unrealistic income projections, which the banks encouraged.  Maybe the funds were looted too, I don't know.  But there is something intrinsically broken with a system that allows people to retire at 50.  First off, it encourages experienced people to leave, since they have no incentive to stay, once their pension is maxed out.  Second, they still have a number of working years left, hence the famous double dipping, where public sector retirees get a job, collecting their pension AND a salary.  The whole idea of a pension is financial security when you are unable to work, not a jackpot.  Expecting people to continue working until they are at least 65, like in the real world, and contributing to their pensions at the same time is hardly going to add to an increase in the welfare rolls.




< Message edited by Iamsemisweet -- 11/8/2011 8:57:26 AM >

_____________________________

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.

(in reply to FirstQuaker)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: California AND bust - 11/8/2011 9:37:36 AM   
EternalHoH


Posts: 791
Joined: 5/30/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

The particular issue that sweet is discussing is about government unions having used their political influence for years in order to get better and better "pension" deals, so that it is now to the point that it is unsustainable.

This is not a "banker" issue.

Firm




How many financial elites have purchased credit default swaps, betting speculatively on the premise that California might go bankrupt?   So when the financial house of California ultimately does burn down, the insurance payouts on the loss are magnified.....

We took over GM and pumped the company up, because the taxpayer, who now owned AIG, would have been on the hook for paying all those speculative "insurance" payouts.  It was simply cheaper for the taxpayer to take over the company, and infuse the cash to make sure it survived, and avoid triggering these speculative payoffs in the first place that would have became payable had GM gone under.  Then the government also purchased up those CDS obligations held by speculators against the auto company it now owned for pennies on the dollar as "toxic assets", to remove the toxicity of this type of loss magnification effect from GM's recovery plans. Yes, GM's pension obligations are what put it on a slow track to bankruptcy, but the CDS component (the bankster issue) was the most costly element for the taxpayer and is what actually forced the takeover.

None of that has been legislatively fixed since the '08 meltdown, either. California has simply replaced GM as the popular, newsworthy object on the financial brink that is being gambled on.

On main street, it is illegal for me to buy an insurance policy that allows me to bet speculatively on the bankruptcy potential of my neighbor, or to take out a fire insurance policy on my neighbor's house. But elites on Wall Street have their own unregulated flavor of "insurance", called a credit default swap, with its own laws that only apply to the elites trading in them, and they have special legal privileges that the average person does not have.

True, the pension issue is a govt union issue.  The REAL BIG COSTS, however, ARE the banker issues.

Or are you right wingers playing union gotcha while giving the false all-clear to the banksters simply incapable of thinking that deep into the problem?

Mark my words, Boehner will be writing the next round of checks for toxic asset relief, tea party resistance or not....






< Message edited by EternalHoH -- 11/8/2011 9:56:06 AM >

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: California AND bust - 11/8/2011 10:55:38 AM   
DomYngBlk


Posts: 3316
Joined: 3/27/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

My comment is hardly the problem.  The problem is a pension scheme that allows someone to retire at 45.

I don't know why this is hard to understand.  THERE IS NO MONEY TO PAY THESE PENSIONS.  1 Trillion Dollars is unfunded.  It doesn't matter what people were "promised".  Taxpayers expect certain benefits too, like paved streets and public safety workers, now.   Instead, their money is going to pay pensions, and greatly affecting their own ability to retire.  I imagine more and more local governments will be driven to bankruptcy, and some states will be looking into it, too.

In doing a little research, my own state is probably in better shape than most when it comes to public pensions, because of the way they are funded in part, but also because the retired firefighters and police aren't living as long as expected. 
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

Iamsemisweet
By the way, your acquaintance who was planning on retiring at 45 and now can't?  Cry me a river.


Well your "cry me a river" statement epitomizes the problem.

These people took jobs and were promised certain benefits.

How is it fair for someone to devote 30 years of their life counting on retirement benefits and then to have them stripped away?




Never want to get it through your skull do you. RAISE REVENUES TO PAY FOR SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(in reply to Iamsemisweet)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: California AND bust - 11/8/2011 10:59:18 AM   
DomYngBlk


Posts: 3316
Joined: 3/27/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

First Quaker, obviously a lot of the problem is that the pension systems were based on unrealistic income projections, which the banks encouraged.  Maybe the funds were looted too, I don't know.  But there is something intrinsically broken with a system that allows people to retire at 50.  First off, it encourages experienced people to leave, since they have no incentive to stay, once their pension is maxed out.  Second, they still have a number of working years left, hence the famous double dipping, where public sector retirees get a job, collecting their pension AND a salary.  The whole idea of a pension is financial security when you are unable to work, not a jackpot.  Expecting people to continue working until they are at least 65, like in the real world, and contributing to their pensions at the same time is hardly going to add to an increase in the welfare rolls.





Nice commercial that went with putting down Issue 2 here. People didn't and don't become social workers, firefighters, policemen or teachers to become wealthy. They realize when they take the job it is only going to pay x amount and that x amount is going to be pretty much the same for 30 years.

Where the fuck does this "jackpot" you talk about happen? Any proof or just blowing shit out of your piehole again

(in reply to Iamsemisweet)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: California AND bust - 11/8/2011 11:02:38 AM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

This is what caused the rukus in Wisconsin. The state employees will for the first time ever start paying for a portion of their health care and contributing a percentage for their retirement plans. All hell breaks loose when 'free' benefits finally have to be paid for.
What portion of your health care did you ever pay for

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: California AND bust - 11/8/2011 11:08:29 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

My comment is hardly the problem.  The problem is a pension scheme that allows someone to retire at 45.

I don't know why this is hard to understand.  THERE IS NO MONEY TO PAY THESE PENSIONS.  1 Trillion Dollars is unfunded.  It doesn't matter what people were "promised".  Taxpayers expect certain benefits too, like paved streets and public safety workers, now.   Instead, their money is going to pay pensions, and greatly affecting their own ability to retire.  I imagine more and more local governments will be driven to bankruptcy, and some states will be looking into it, too.

In doing a little research, my own state is probably in better shape than most when it comes to public pensions, because of the way they are funded in part, but also because the retired firefighters and police aren't living as long as expected. 



It's very simple to understand.

The pensions are an obligation, not an option.

And for these cities to maintain they can terminate those pensions is not only illegal but dishonest.

(in reply to Iamsemisweet)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: California AND bust - 11/8/2011 11:17:55 AM   
Iamsemisweet


Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline 		Read the article, which is the topic of this thread, instead of just talking out of your ass.   I think the article explains it rather well.  Since you didn't and I haven't noticed that you are particularly interested in informing yourself,, I will happily summarize it for you, in short, declarative sentences, just like the bumper stickers where you seem to get most of your political and financial ideas.   You are welcome

The officially recognized gap between what the state would owe its workers and what it had on hand to pay them was roughly $105 billion, but that, thanks to accounting gimmicks, was probably only about half the real number.
Let's use the optimistic figure.
The population of CA is 37,253,956
Meaning the additional revenue that would have to be "raised" is $2818.48 for every  man, woman, and child, just to cover pensions.
CA has a system in place that makes it difficult to increase taxes.
I doubt voters are going to go for removing that system, just to meet pension obligations.  Perhaps you disagree. 

The "jackpot" remark refers to the common practice of retiring, and then taking a private sector job.  You can call it something else, if you want.
quote:

quote]ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk


Nice commercial that went with putting down Issue 2 here. People didn't and don't become social workers, firefighters, policemen or teachers to become wealthy. They realize when they take the job it is only going to pay x amount and that x amount is going to be pretty much the same for 30 years.

Where the fuck does this "jackpot" you talk about happen? Any proof or just blowing shit out of your piehole again


< Message edited by Iamsemisweet -- 11/8/2011 11:45:16 AM >

_____________________________

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.

(in reply to DomYngBlk)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: California AND bust - 11/8/2011 11:25:09 AM   
Iamsemisweet


Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline 		Have it your way.  The article discusses the city of Vallejo, which dealt with its pension obligations by going bankrupt.  The public employees got 20 cents on the dollar.  I imagine Vallejo won't be the last municipality to resort to bankruptcy.  The numbers are the numbers. 
God I am happy I don't live in CA.  But I do wish I lived in the fantasy land that some of you people do.
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

My comment is hardly the problem.  The problem is a pension scheme that allows someone to retire at 45.

I don't know why this is hard to understand.  THERE IS NO MONEY TO PAY THESE PENSIONS.  1 Trillion Dollars is unfunded.  It doesn't matter what people were "promised".  Taxpayers expect certain benefits too, like paved streets and public safety workers, now.   Instead, their money is going to pay pensions, and greatly affecting their own ability to retire.  I imagine more and more local governments will be driven to bankruptcy, and some states will be looking into it, too.

In doing a little research, my own state is probably in better shape than most when it comes to public pensions, because of the way they are funded in part, but also because the retired firefighters and police aren't living as long as expected. 



It's very simple to understand.

The pensions are an obligation, not an option.

And for these cities to maintain they can terminate those pensions is not only illegal but dishonest.



< Message edited by Iamsemisweet -- 11/8/2011 11:36:56 AM >

_____________________________

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: California AND bust - 11/8/2011 12:05:11 PM   
SternSkipper


Posts: 7546
Joined: 3/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/11/michael-lewis-201111

This article is frightening. Michael Lewis is a financial writer who was written about the financial crisis in Greece, Ireland, and now California, the 10th largest economy in the world.


Mike is probably the most salient non-fiction writer the business world has seen since the whole Ann Rand trip ... which is now finally grinding to a halt around us because it can't really support itself.
   If you wish to really get your teeth into the economic time you live in read the two other works of Mike's entitled "Liar's Poker" and "The Big Short".  It lays everything out in a neat and very understandable form. And unlike all the gusto/bullshit rich autobiographies of the people who want our worship for their god-like navigation of financial seas, Lewis shows you what those fucks were up to.



_____________________________

Looking forward to The Dead Singing The National Anthem At The World Series.




Tinfoilers Swallow


(in reply to Iamsemisweet)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: California AND bust Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.093