[rubicon]

Keep these thoughts in mind.

The PBGC is going broke it can't fund many plans that go insolvent.

The bill originated in the house but went to the Senate and was also approved so it is a bipartisan bill and if people want to point fingers then there is enough blame to go around in both major political parties.

This bill was passed because the only other option was a taxpayer bailout. Think GM before you say any further .......................

This bill set precedent and could apply to public pension plans, social security and medicare. Note I said could as this is pure speculation by observers.

States like Illinois spend upward of 40% of their budget funding retiree public pension and medical programs. it is a very serious problem because there were assumption made in these plans that were advanced in order to get contracts signed. Again if these plans fail there are two options taxpayer bailouts or cut benefits increase retiree age limits, etc.

In the private sector if a pension plan goes belly up employees eat the losses

Of course none of this will ever affect congressional leaders and their staff
or as they use to say in France 'Let them Eat Cake"

Cést la vie

[gomoho]

Rubicon - I would rather see the people bail themselves out than bail out a corporation. After all it's the people's money to begin with.

I do think the public and union pensions need to tighten their belts like most corporations have done with their management retirees. Husband is a management retiree from one of the big 3 and we have assumed the majority of our medicare health care costs. Unions will fight it, but a little something is better than nothing.

[sunnyatlast]

When will people learn from messes like this that legislators make and the states' taxpayers are ALREADY on the hook to pay for, for this type of boondoggle??

Illinois’ pension liability as a percentage of state revenue is far and away the nation’s highest, according to a new report from a major credit-rating agency.

The state’s three-year average liability over revenue is 258 percent, Moody’s Investors Service says.

The next closest? Connecticut, at about 200 percent.

The Moody’s report averaged the Illinois percentage from 2010 through 2012. In 2012 alone, the state’s rate was 318 percent.

The state has a $100 billion deficit in the amount of money that should be invested in the portfolios of five state-employee pension accounts. Lawmakers adopted an overhaul plan last fall that cuts benefits and increases worker contributions to significantly cut that debt.

But the law has been challenged in court……"

http://politics.suntimes.com/article...09062014-848pm

[B767drvr]

Originally Posted by sunnyatlast

When will people learn from messes like this that legislators make and the states' taxpayers are ALREADY on the hook to pay for, for this type of boondoggle??

Illinois’ pension liability as a percentage of state revenue is far and away the nation’s highest, according to a new report from a major credit-rating agency.

The state’s three-year average liability over revenue is 258 percent, Moody’s Investors Service says.

The next closest? Connecticut, at about 200 percent.

The Moody’s report averaged the Illinois percentage from 2010 through 2012. In 2012 alone, the state’s rate was 318 percent.

The state has a $100 billion deficit in the amount of money that should be invested in the portfolios of five state-employee pension accounts. Lawmakers adopted an overhaul plan last fall that cuts benefits and increases worker contributions to significantly cut that debt.

But the law has been challenged in court……"

http://politics.suntimes.com/article...09062014-848pm

Since I'm not supposed to direct my comments toward other users, Sunny, I'll preface that my remarks are directed at no one in particular.

Through my keen powers of observation, I've noticed that PUBLIC unions give an awful lot of money to certain candidates that believe in confiscating and redistributing tax dollars. It's a very "cute" cycle where PUBLIC unions donate to sympathetic candidates, said candidates are elected, and then… wait for it… oh my gosh, they feel an "obligation" to "repay" their donors in the form of ever increasing benefit and pensions for public service employees.

On a national level, "we" borrow 42 cents of every dollar spent. Does ANYONE really believe the laws of economics can be ignored indefinitely?

Guess what? Social Security and Medicare are next. They are bankrupting the country. The can can only be kicked down the road so far. Plan for it is the best advice. It WILL have to be tackled one day. Perhaps most of the current villagers will have passed before then, good for them, but their kids, grandkids, and great-grandkids will have to pay the tab. Sorry, but Santa Claus is not real.

My guess is the Fed will inflate it away; beware "approaching" seniors!

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by B767drvr

Since I'm not supposed to direct my comments toward other users, Sunny, I'll preface that my remarks are directed at no one in particular.

Through my keen powers of observation, I've noticed that PUBLIC unions give an awful lot of money to certain candidates that believe in confiscating and redistributing tax dollars. It's a very "cute" cycle where PUBLIC unions donate to sympathetic candidates, said candidates are elected, and then… wait for it… oh my gosh, they feel an "obligation" to "repay" their donors in the form of ever increasing benefit and pensions for public service employees.

On a national level, "we" borrow 42 cents of every dollar spent. Does ANYONE really believe the laws of economics can be ignored indefinitely?

Guess what? Social Security and Medicare are next. They are bankrupting the country. The can can only be kicked down the road so far. Plan for it is the best advice. It WILL have to be tackled one day. Perhaps most of the current villagers will have passed before then, good for them, but their kids, grandkids, and great-grandkids will have to pay the tab. Sorry, but Santa Claus is not real.

My guess is the Fed will inflate it away; beware "approaching" seniors!

Impressive post with great insights

[Paper1]

Originally Posted by B767drvr

Since I'm not supposed to direct my comments toward other users, Sunny, I'll preface that my remarks are directed at no one in particular.

Through my keen powers of observation, I've noticed that PUBLIC unions give an awful lot of money to certain candidates that believe in confiscating and redistributing tax dollars. It's a very "cute" cycle where PUBLIC unions donate to sympathetic candidates, said candidates are elected, and then… wait for it… oh my gosh, they feel an "obligation" to "repay" their donors in the form of ever increasing benefit and pensions for public service employees.

On a national level, "we" borrow 42 cents of every dollar spent. Does ANYONE really believe the laws of economics can be ignored indefinitely?

Guess what? Social Security and Medicare are next. They are bankrupting the country. The can can only be kicked down the road so far. Plan for it is the best advice. It WILL have to be tackled one day. Perhaps most of the current villagers will have passed before then, good for them, but their kids, grandkids, and great-grandkids will have to pay the tab. Sorry, but Santa Claus is not real.

My guess is the Fed will inflate it away; beware "approaching" seniors!

All good points but any candidate that suggests we address any of these issues will find himself unemployed. Americans agree you can raise taxes and cut benefits as long as they are not theirs.

[The Buckeyes]

Originally Posted by Sandtrap328

First, it was not a surprise. The President said it would be done before the end of the year.

Is the alternative to forcibly round up 11 million people (some with legal citizen children) and deport them - separating the parents from children, since you cannot deport a legally born citizen to a country they were not born in?

Let's show some compassion.

Make sure you show some compassion when you have to press 1 for English!

[The Buckeyes]

As to the multi employer pension plans...UPS paid the Teamsters Union over $6 Billion dollars to exit the plan for their drivers in the Central States Plan. That's right....Billion with a [B]B[B]. It ended up to be nothing but a wealth redistribution scheme. For every $100 bucks the company would contribute their driver would probably collect only $25 bucks at retirement. The rest of the money was used to pay for pensions of other company's employees even those who had gone out of business. By the way, do you know how Las Vegas was built....follow the money back to the teamsters and Jimmy Hoffa.

[Sandtrap328]

Originally Posted by The Buckeyes

Make sure you show some compassion when you have to press 1 for English!

Dos por Espanol! Gracias.

Really, does it irritate you that much to take an extra second to press 1? How about Canada where all signs are in both anglais and french? When Puerto Rico becomes a state in the not too distant future, it will be bilingual.

[The Buckeyes]

Originally Posted by Sandtrap328

Dos por Espanol! Gracias.

Really, does it irritate you that much to take an extra second to press 1? How about Canada where all signs are in both anglais and french? When Puerto Rico becomes a state in the not too distant future, it will be bilingual.

YES IT DOES!
While growing up I didn't have to press 1 for English! Maybe I should press 1 for English and 2 for German, Polish, Italian, ect. ect. ect. Our families assimilated, embraced their new country and learned English no matter how difficult it may have been and they immigrated LEAGALLY!

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by B767drvr

snipped

Through my keen powers of observation, I've noticed that PUBLIC unions give an awful lot of money to certain candidates that believe in confiscating and redistributing tax dollars. It's a very "cute" cycle where PUBLIC unions donate to sympathetic candidates, said candidates are elected, and then… wait for it… oh my gosh, they feel an "obligation" to "repay" their donors in the form of ever increasing benefit and pensions for public service employees.

snipped

Such donating is not limited to public unions - right? And we still have PACs and Super PACs. Aren't those contributions 'somewhat' responsible for the recent turn of events when it comes to undoing the limits on corporate and individual campaign contributions?

Do we all not contribute in our own way and to the best of our ability, be it cash, stuffing envelopes, manning the phone bank, hosting a candidate meet and greet, etc. in order to promote our favorite candidate - who in one way or another will be redistributing/controlling/limiting whatever resources are within their purview?

[elevatorman]

Originally Posted by scarecrow1

There are term limits already. They call it voting.

I would like to see a two term limit. One in office and the second in jail!