Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Lost in the partisan reporting over Chris Christie's New Jersey budget address was this nugget:

"Taken together, retiree and debt costs will eat up 94 percent of the state's projected revenue growth." 94% of the state's revenue is going to pay pensions off & debt. You think that's bad? Wait a few years & the projected pension growth, not only in New Jersey, but the vast majority of the 50 states is staggering.

America has a welfare problem in this country, I know some of you aren't going to like that word, but it's what it is. We guarantee poor people money at the bottom income levels & we guarantee retirees money after they are done working. Key word - guarantee - the market goes way down well guess who pays for these pensions - the taxpayers.

People scream for lower taxes...understandable, people scream for key government services - safe bridges & roads....understandable. But the money has to come from somewhere & right now pension plans in cities, states & federally are tightening their stranglehold across America.

Wake up.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?secti ... id=9444288" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

bluehenbillk wrote:Lost in the partisan reporting over Chris Christie's New Jersey budget address was this nugget:

"Taken together, retiree and debt costs will eat up 94 percent of the state's projected revenue growth." 94% of the state's revenue is going to pay pensions off & debt. You think that's bad? Wait a few years & the projected pension growth, not only in New Jersey, but the vast majority of the 50 states is staggering.

America has a welfare problem in this country, I know some of you aren't going to like that word, but it's what it is. We guarantee poor people money at the bottom income levels & we guarantee retirees money after they are done working. Key word - guarantee - the market goes way down well guess who pays for these pensions - the taxpayers.

People scream for lower taxes...understandable, people scream for key government services - safe bridges & roads....understandable. But the money has to come from somewhere & right now pension plans in cities, states & federally are tightening their stranglehold across America.

Wake up.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?secti ... id=9444288" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You mean those retirees didn't put their money into their pensions?

And by "welfare problem" you of course are including the billions in corporate subsidies?

houndawg wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:Lost in the partisan reporting over Chris Christie's New Jersey budget address was this nugget:

"Taken together, retiree and debt costs will eat up 94 percent of the state's projected revenue growth." 94% of the state's revenue is going to pay pensions off & debt. You think that's bad? Wait a few years & the projected pension growth, not only in New Jersey, but the vast majority of the 50 states is staggering.

America has a welfare problem in this country, I know some of you aren't going to like that word, but it's what it is. We guarantee poor people money at the bottom income levels & we guarantee retirees money after they are done working. Key word - guarantee - the market goes way down well guess who pays for these pensions - the taxpayers.

People scream for lower taxes...understandable, people scream for key government services - safe bridges & roads....understandable. But the money has to come from somewhere & right now pension plans in cities, states & federally are tightening their stranglehold across America.

Wake up.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?secti ... id=9444288" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You mean those retirees didn't put their money into their pensions?

And by "welfare problem" you of course are including the billions in corporate subsidies?

If the pensions were fully, or even mostly covered by what was paid into them, then we wouldn't have a problem. However, a good chunk of most pensions come from the contributions that the states or other controlling government entity needed to put into them. In a lot of cases, those entities chose to allow themselves not to fully fund those pensions since the costs to do so in many cases were staggering. Of course, what was staggering when they were supposed to be funded is even more so now that we are, in some cases, decades behind funding them.

It also didn't help that in some cases, increases in pension benefits were done by lawmakers since they were voting to increase their own pension benefits along with the civil employees. In Pennsylvania, they increased the pension multiplier from 1.5 to 2.5 in the dead of night about a decade ago and it applied to all government employees - teachers, legislators, etc. Now a teacher can retire after teaching 30 years and pretty much get their final salary as their annual pension. Throw that in with continued access in retirement with a very generous benefit package, the guarantee of tenure for 97% of their working life, and the ability in some states (like PA) to have pension income excluded from state income tax, and it's a pretty sweet gig if you can get it, but not something that's very sustainable. Of course, my wife is a public school teacher and well along at this point to reap the benefits of this unsustainable system so I'm going to personally benefit from it (take that taxpayers! I got me a sugar momma!) but that doesn't mean it's the right system to have.

houndawg wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:Lost in the partisan reporting over Chris Christie's New Jersey budget address was this nugget:

"Taken together, retiree and debt costs will eat up 94 percent of the state's projected revenue growth." 94% of the state's revenue is going to pay pensions off & debt. You think that's bad? Wait a few years & the projected pension growth, not only in New Jersey, but the vast majority of the 50 states is staggering.

America has a welfare problem in this country, I know some of you aren't going to like that word, but it's what it is. We guarantee poor people money at the bottom income levels & we guarantee retirees money after they are done working. Key word - guarantee - the market goes way down well guess who pays for these pensions - the taxpayers.

People scream for lower taxes...understandable, people scream for key government services - safe bridges & roads....understandable. But the money has to come from somewhere & right now pension plans in cities, states & federally are tightening their stranglehold across America.

Wake up.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?secti ... id=9444288" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You mean those retirees didn't put their money into their pensions?

And by "welfare problem" you of course are including the billions in corporate subsidies?

Typical donk....you have the misguided notion that 100% of the money in the world belongs to the government and they give back what they want out of their good graces. Taxing the fuck out of something and then giving them a portion of that money back isn't "welfare".

Give tax breaks to large corporations and fund $500,000,000 stadiums. The increased revenue will help make up the pension costs.

My favorite is when the state gov fuzzies up the budget numbers and excludes pension debts to make it seem like the state is not in that bad of shape. Winning.

How much of the pension goes to Union Members.

AZGrizFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:
You mean those retirees didn't put their money into their pensions?

And by "welfare problem" you of course are including the billions in corporate subsidies?

Typical donk....you have the misguided notion that 100% of the money in the world belongs to the government and they give back what they want out of their good graces. Taxing the **** out of something and then giving them a portion of that money back isn't "welfare".

It's the Elizabeth Warren view of the world. Anything that the government doesn't tax 100% is now considered a subsidy. It's certainly one way of looking at things. Not necessarily the right way, but it's one way.

AZGrizFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:
You mean those retirees didn't put their money into their pensions?

And by "welfare problem" you of course are including the billions in corporate subsidies?

Typical donk....you have the misguided notion that 100% of the money in the world belongs to the government and they give back what they want out of their good graces. Taxing the **** out of something and then giving them a portion of that money back isn't "welfare".

Hey look! It's Bring-a-simpleton-to-the-political-forum Day!

AZGrizFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:
You mean those retirees didn't put their money into their pensions?

And by "welfare problem" you of course are including the billions in corporate subsidies?

Typical donk....you have the misguided notion that 100% of the money in the world belongs to the government and they give back what they want out of their good graces. Taxing the fuck out of something and then giving them a portion of that money back isn't "welfare".

houndpuppy is a clown and, at this point, most of his posts are done simply to rile up others. He is starting to realize how stupid his liberal position is, and the only thing he has left is to deflect every conversation to attack corporate greed (as though anyone supports that position).

Sad, really. Poor houndawg believes women are smarter than him, and he believes everyone should support those folks who are too lazy and too stupid to find a way to make themselves worthy of anyone's interest.

GannonFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:
You mean those retirees didn't put their money into their pensions?

And by "welfare problem" you of course are including the billions in corporate subsidies?

If the pensions were fully, or even mostly covered by what was paid into them, then we wouldn't have a problem. However, a good chunk of most pensions come from the contributions that the states or other controlling government entity needed to put into them. In a lot of cases, those entities chose to allow themselves not to fully fund those pensions since the costs to do so in many cases were staggering. Of course, what was staggering when they were supposed to be funded is even more so now that we are, in some cases, decades behind funding them.

It also didn't help that in some cases, increases in pension benefits were done by lawmakers since they were voting to increase their own pension benefits along with the civil employees. In Pennsylvania, they increased the pension multiplier from 1.5 to 2.5 in the dead of night about a decade ago and it applied to all government employees - teachers, legislators, etc. Now a teacher can retire after teaching 30 years and pretty much get their final salary as their annual pension. Throw that in with continued access in retirement with a very generous benefit package, the guarantee of tenure for 97% of their working life, and the ability in some states (like PA) to have pension income excluded from state income tax, and it's a pretty sweet gig if you can get it, but not something that's very sustainable. Of course, my wife is a public school teacher and well along at this point to reap the benefits of this unsustainable system so I'm going to personally benefit from it (take that taxpayers! I got me a sugar momma!) but that doesn't mean it's the right system to have.

Illinois is a classic example. Except of course for the separate system the lawmakers have for themselves, which is funded to 400%. But yes, its all the school teachers fault.

Gee, maybe our so-called shouldn't have made a deal they knew they couldn't keep.

Cluck U wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Typical donk....you have the misguided notion that 100% of the money in the world belongs to the government and they give back what they want out of their good graces. Taxing the **** out of something and then giving them a portion of that money back isn't "welfare".

houndpuppy is a clown and, at this point, most of his posts are done simply to rile up others. He is starting to realize how stupid his liberal position is, and the only thing he has left is to deflect every conversation to attack corporate greed (as though anyone supports that position).

Sad, really. Poor houndawg believes women are smarter than him, and he believes everyone should support those folks who are too lazy and too stupid to find a way to make themselves worthy of anyone's interest.

What's that yapping sound?

GannonFan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Typical donk....you have the misguided notion that 100% of the money in the world belongs to the government and they give back what they want out of their good graces. Taxing the **** out of something and then giving them a portion of that money back isn't "welfare".

It's the Elizabeth Warren view of the world. Anything that the government doesn't tax 100% is now considered a subsidy. It's certainly one way of looking at things. Not necessarily the right way, but it's one way.

Yeah...that's it!

houndawg wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Typical donk....you have the misguided notion that 100% of the money in the world belongs to the government and they give back what they want out of their good graces. Taxing the **** out of something and then giving them a portion of that money back isn't "welfare".

Hey look! It's Bring-a-simpleton-to-the-political-forum Day!

Yep. And I brought you.

houndawg wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
If the pensions were fully, or even mostly covered by what was paid into them, then we wouldn't have a problem. However, a good chunk of most pensions come from the contributions that the states or other controlling government entity needed to put into them. In a lot of cases, those entities chose to allow themselves not to fully fund those pensions since the costs to do so in many cases were staggering. Of course, what was staggering when they were supposed to be funded is even more so now that we are, in some cases, decades behind funding them.

It also didn't help that in some cases, increases in pension benefits were done by lawmakers since they were voting to increase their own pension benefits along with the civil employees. In Pennsylvania, they increased the pension multiplier from 1.5 to 2.5 in the dead of night about a decade ago and it applied to all government employees - teachers, legislators, etc. Now a teacher can retire after teaching 30 years and pretty much get their final salary as their annual pension. Throw that in with continued access in retirement with a very generous benefit package, the guarantee of tenure for 97% of their working life, and the ability in some states (like PA) to have pension income excluded from state income tax, and it's a pretty sweet gig if you can get it, but not something that's very sustainable. Of course, my wife is a public school teacher and well along at this point to reap the benefits of this unsustainable system so I'm going to personally benefit from it (take that taxpayers! I got me a sugar momma!) but that doesn't mean it's the right system to have.

Illinois is a classic example. Except of course for the separate system the lawmakers have for themselves, which is funded to 400%. But yes, its all the school teachers fault.

Gee, maybe our so-called shouldn't have made a deal they knew they couldn't keep.

Well, in the PA situation, the school teachers didn't exactly say no when they were presented with a sweet deal from the legislature that clearly could not be kept. I agree, it's not their fault, but while they are benefitting supremely from that bad legislation, they shouldn't expect that people won't chide them for being part of that bad legislation. In the Bernie Madoff scandal, people weren't exactly sympathetic to the people who, not knowing what Madoff was doing, were the lucky ones who made off with a lot of money. Heck, there was a pretty big lawsuit to claw some of that money back even though those people did nothing wrong.

Would it be too difficult to do away with pensions? Say, if you have 10 or more years in to your pension,then you're locked in. Anyone with 0-10 yrs would see their money moved into a 401(k) or some other retirement plan with a contribution of $.50 to the dollar matching but no to exceed 6%? Times have changed.

houndawg wrote:Illinois is a classic example. Except of course for the separate system the lawmakers have for themselves, which is funded to 400%. But yes, its all the school teachers fault.

Gee, maybe our so-called shouldn't have made a deal they knew they couldn't keep.

True. What you don't mention is that the Illinois AFL/CIO and other unions supported the diversions of pension funding to other construction and other projects because it meant more union jobs. They ignored the long-term risks and focused on the immediate benefits. Unfortunately it's time to pay the piper and they're blaming the politicians and pretending to be guilt free.

Ibanez wrote:Would it be too difficult to do away with pensions? Say, if you have 10 or more years in to your pension,then you're locked in. Anyone with 0-10 yrs would see their money moved into a 401(k) or some other retirement plan with a contribution of $.50 to the dollar matching but no to exceed 6%? Times have changed.

My personal opinion is that the government should make every attempt to honor what's been committed to so far but that contracts and the benefits in them need to be modified going forward. That should relieve a lot of the unfunded liability.

houndawg wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:Lost in the partisan reporting over Chris Christie's New Jersey budget address was this nugget:

"Taken together, retiree and debt costs will eat up 94 percent of the state's projected revenue growth." 94% of the state's revenue is going to pay pensions off & debt. You think that's bad? Wait a few years & the projected pension growth, not only in New Jersey, but the vast majority of the 50 states is staggering.

America has a welfare problem in this country, I know some of you aren't going to like that word, but it's what it is. We guarantee poor people money at the bottom income levels & we guarantee retirees money after they are done working. Key word - guarantee - the market goes way down well guess who pays for these pensions - the taxpayers.

People scream for lower taxes...understandable, people scream for key government services - safe bridges & roads....understandable. But the money has to come from somewhere & right now pension plans in cities, states & federally are tightening their stranglehold across America.

Wake up.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?secti ... id=9444288" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You mean those retirees didn't put their money into their pensions?

And by "welfare problem" you of course are including the billions in corporate subsidies?

LOL...typical response from you.

Yep....business is the root of all ills, according to you.

UNI88 wrote:

houndawg wrote:Illinois is a classic example. Except of course for the separate system the lawmakers have for themselves, which is funded to 400%. But yes, its all the school teachers fault.

Gee, maybe our so-called shouldn't have made a deal they knew they couldn't keep.

True. What you don't mention is that the Illinois AFL/CIO and other unions supported the diversions of pension funding to other construction and other projects because it meant more union jobs. They ignored the long-term risks and focused on the immediate benefits. Unfortunately it's time to pay the piper and they're blaming the politicians and pretending to be guilt free.

Another bit of free education for the learning disabled.

Let those states go bankrupt!!

GannonFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:
You mean those retirees didn't put their money into their pensions?

And by "welfare problem" you of course are including the billions in corporate subsidies?

If the pensions were fully, or even mostly covered by what was paid into them, then we wouldn't have a problem. However, a good chunk of most pensions come from the contributions that the states or other controlling government entity needed to put into them. In a lot of cases, those entities chose to allow themselves not to fully fund those pensions since the costs to do so in many cases were staggering. Of course, what was staggering when they were supposed to be funded is even more so now that we are, in some cases, decades behind funding them.

It also didn't help that in some cases, increases in pension benefits were done by lawmakers since they were voting to increase their own pension benefits along with the civil employees. In Pennsylvania, they increased the pension multiplier from 1.5 to 2.5 in the dead of night about a decade ago and it applied to all government employees - teachers, legislators, etc. Now a teacher can retire after teaching 30 years and pretty much get their final salary as their annual pension. Throw that in with continued access in retirement with a very generous benefit package, the guarantee of tenure for 97% of their working life, and the ability in some states (like PA) to have pension income excluded from state income tax, and it's a pretty sweet gig if you can get it, but not something that's very sustainable. Of course, my wife is a public school teacher and well along at this point to reap the benefits of this unsustainable system so I'm going to personally benefit from it (take that taxpayers! I got me a sugar momma!) but that doesn't mean it's the right system to have.

In regards to PA, just out today:

"State auditor general calls for state action to help struggling municipal pension programs

In a report released today, state Auditor General Eugene DePasquale raised the alarm about distressed pension funds in Pennsylvania’s cities, townships and boroughs, which collectively fall $6.7 billion short of being fully funded.

Mr. DePasquale held a news conference this afternoon with Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto, who is making pension reform a priority of his administration.

Citing Detroit’s historic declaration of bankruptcy last year, Mr. DePasquale warned that if the problem isn’t addressed, retirees and employees face the possibility of not seeing their full pension benefits.

“In Pennsylvania, for those municipalities whose pension plans have become so underfunded that the plans are rated as ‘distressed,’ the promised retirement commitments are at risk,” the report said.

Pittsburgh and Philadelphia account for three-quarters of underfunding among the 573 municipalities. The city’s pension fund is about 62 percent funded, with $380 million in unfunded liabilities, according to the report.

In 2015, accounting standards will change to require cities to list unfunded pension liabilities on their balance sheets. The change could make it more expensive for communities to borrow money and force them to raise taxes, the report said.

Mr. DePasquale’s report included several recommendations for state legislation that could ease the burden, including provisions to prevent employees from using overtime in the waning days of their career to boost their pension payments — which recently was put in place for Allegheny County employees — and creating a program for distressed municipal pensions that would include greater state aid.

At the news conference, Mr. DePasquale said it’s time for officials to address the issue at the state level.

“This is clearly a Pennsylvania problem and it’s not going away and it needs the action of the General Assembly ... and the governor,” he said."
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/ ... 1402260138" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They're agreements made with employees... unless they declare bankruptcy, they should have to honor their commitments. They can feel free to change their pensions for future employees if they want, though.

Also, I'm sure military pensions are off the table, right?

We are headed toward a huge showdown between taxpayers and public employees in a lot of states...

BDKJMU wrote:In regards to PA, just out today:

1) "Mr. DePasquale’s report included several recommendations for state legislation that could ease the burden, including provisions to prevent employees from using overtime in the waning days of their career to boost their pension payments

2) and creating a program for distressed municipal pensions that would include greater state aid.

At the news conference, Mr. DePasquale said it’s time for officials to address the issue at the state level.

“This is clearly a Pennsylvania problem and it’s not going away and it needs the action of the General Assembly ... and the governor,” he said."

1) Duh. It is criminal how employees use the overtime angle, and the two city/state jobs angle, to raise their retirement.

2) No, it isn't the state's problem. Tax those creeps that elected the officials who made the deals. Leave the rest of the sane people out of it.