Their will be a major battle between the haves and the have nots.

The haves= public pensions

The have nots= private pensions (social security)


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../08/026948.php

there is a lot of truth in the article...but i do take issue with the blanket application of fact/belief used by the author. not all public pensioners benefit from the benevolent provisions described in the article.

both my husband and i are recipients of public pensions...but we do not reap the benes described by the author. each of us pays toward our medical/health benefits and neither of us benefits from automatic pension increases - nj is contemplating a 9% cut back, in fact...not what we were "guaranteed"!

nor does the author indicate that many public pensioners spent many years earning far less than their private employer counterparts...those now retiring from public service only in the past decade began to earn comparable salaries...but mostly due to the shrinking economy in the private sector and negotiated contracts in the public sector.

nor does the author take into account the disparity of pay structures and cost of living in the various geographic regions of the country and fields of employment. not all pensions put their recipients in the lap of luxury.

as a state employee in the human resources field i was there to work the system, find the loopholes, process the paperwork for appointed individuals with fewer educational and experience credentials than myself...it is what i was paid to do...along with insuring the prosperity of the routine, run-of the-mill employee who was the real brains in how to keep getting their work processed and often had to have their union rights enforced for them...despite the benevolence of their employer.

i heard the pleas and the screams of constituents and their representatives who requested as well as demanded more services, faster respons times, yada, yada, yada. well, the only way that could happen was to add more people to process, buy more technology, retrain existing employees. unfortunately, none of that was free!

so i ask that when you and/or others complain about the cost of supporting your public employees in their retirement, please remember that they are the people who issued your professional license, responded to and investigated your consumer complaint, enforced the statutes/laws/regulations your representatives developed in response to more of the tax-payers wants and demands, who ensured your safety from the incarcerated, who processed your reimbursements, yada, yada, yada. these employees are not part of the auto industry, the financial institutions, the insurance industry, the medical field.

there are changes that need to be made, but they should not impact the public employee who worked for you more than they worked for a municipality or a state.

stepping down from my soapbox now

Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians

Originally Posted by njbchbum

there is a lot of truth in the article...but i do take issue with the blanket application of fact/belief used by the author. not all public pensioners benefit from the benevolent provisions described in the article.

both my husband and i are recipients of public pensions...but we do not reap the benes described by the author. each of us pays toward our medical/health benefits and neither of us benefits from automatic pension increases - nj is contemplating a 9% cut back, in fact...not what we were "guaranteed"!

nor does the author indicate that many public pensioners spent many years earning far less than their private employer counterparts...those now retiring from public service only in the past decade began to earn comparable salaries...but mostly due to the shrinking economy in the private sector and negotiated contracts in the public sector.

nor does the author take into account the disparity of pay structures and cost of living in the various geographic regions of the country and fields of employment. not all pensions put their recipients in the lap of luxury.

as a state employee in the human resources field i was there to work the system, find the loopholes, process the paperwork for appointed individuals with fewer educational and experience credentials than myself...it is what i was paid to do...along with insuring the prosperity of the routine, run-of the-mill employee who was the real brains in how to keep getting their work processed and often had to have their union rights enforced for them...despite the benevolence of their employer.

i heard the pleas and the screams of constituents and their representatives who requested as well as demanded more services, faster respons times, yada, yada, yada. well, the only way that could happen was to add more people to process, buy more technology, retrain existing employees. unfortunately, none of that was free!

so i ask that when you and/or others complain about the cost of supporting your public employees in their retirement, please remember that they are the people who issued your professional license, responded to and investigated your consumer complaint, enforced the statutes/laws/regulations your representatives developed in response to more of the tax-payers wants and demands, who ensured your safety from the incarcerated, who processed your reimbursements, yada, yada, yada. these employees are not part of the auto industry, the financial institutions, the insurance industry, the medical field.

there are changes that need to be made, but they should not impact the public employee who worked for you more than they worked for a municipality or a state.

stepping down from my soapbox now

Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians

I don't always agree with your posts, but this one is brilliant!

I'm tired of posters here who find some article somewhere, wrap it up in a melodramatic statement, then breathlessly present it as the latest example of their deep insight and wisdom. Their superficial stuff often just seems to be a desperate effort to get attention, and maybe a few comments of agreement.

It is so refreshing to read some solid facts and compelling arguments presented in a balanced adult fashion, from someone who has been there and done that.

Originally Posted by njbchbum

there is a lot of truth in the article...but i do take issue with the blanket application of fact/belief used by the author. not all public pensioners benefit from the benevolent provisions described in the article.

both my husband and i are recipients of public pensions...but we do not reap the benes described by the author. each of us pays toward our medical/health benefits and neither of us benefits from automatic pension increases - nj is contemplating a 9% cut back, in fact...not what we were "guaranteed"!

Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians

You said, "neither of us benefits from automatic pension increases." In the article, the author states, "Note that all we are talking about here is
reducing the rate at which the pensions of retired public employees will increase. This at a time when private sector employees are being laid off, seeing their salaries cut, and their investments have declined in value."

So really the article doesn't reflect on you or your pension. I agree with you about blanket statements. Not every state is in the same dire straits that New Jersery's pension plan has found itself in. New Jersey isn't the only state in this shape either. But on the other hand, some states are still doing okay comparitively.

I don't live in New Jersey, but I like what I've read and heard about Chris Christie. It is a beautiful state and I hope he can help turn things around.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../08/026948.php

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

You said, "neither of us benefits from automatic pension increases." In the article, the author states, "Note that all we are talking about here is
reducing the rate at which the pensions of retired public employees will increase. This at a time when private sector employees are being laid off, seeing their salaries cut, and their investments have declined in value."

So really the article doesn't reflect on you or your pension. I agree with you about blanket statements. Not every state is in the same dire straits that New Jersery's pension plan has found itself in. New Jersey isn't the only state in this shape either. But on the other hand, some states are still doing okay comparitively.

I don't live in New Jersey, but I like what I've read and heard about Chris Christie. It is a beautiful state and I hope he can help turn things around.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../08/026948.php

Many times the public unions were asked to take a decrease in their increase and they refused to budge. Their lack of sympathy for the people who pay their healthy wages is astonishing.
I was reading today that the union is fighting to keep the sex enhancing drug Viagra, in their many health benefits. It will cost the taxpayers $750,000 for the unions to keep their Viagra. Don't they have no shame?

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

I don't always agree with your posts, but this one is brilliant!

I'm tired of posters here who find some article somewhere, wrap it up in a melodramatic statement, then breathlessly present it as the latest example of their deep insight and wisdom. Their superficial stuff often just seems to be a desperate effort to get attention, and maybe a few comments of agreement.

It is so refreshing to read some solid facts and compelling arguments presented in a balanced adult fashion, from someone who has been there and done that.

Sometimes people can say more in a few words then the page full responses that say little.

It is amazing how some can say so much but mean so little, just like politicians.

Originally Posted by Pats2010

Many times the public unions were asked to take a decrease in their increase and they refused to budge. Their lack of sympathy for the people who pay their healthy wages is astonishing.
I was reading today that the union is fighting to keep the sex enhancing drug Viagra, in their many health benefits. It will cost the taxpayers $750,000 for the unions to keep their Viagra. Don't they have no shame?

Re the first part of your statement about unions refusing to take a decrease in their [negotiated - my reminder] increase and their lack of sympathy for the people who pay their healthy wages.....
my first point is that the members of any municipal/county/state pension plan is probably a taxpayer of that municipality/county/state who is and has been paying their taxes there all along. in the words of jimmy buffett - we are the people our parents warned us about.

Re the last point of refusing to give up viagra, i contend that giving up any prescription drug begins the slippery slope - what drug will you want eliminated next? it reminds me of the arguments during the health care legislation debates about diminished care for the elderly or the newborns who have little hope of survival because of serious birth defects.

this point could be one that might be better addressed by asking the union members to pay a greater share of certain categories of drugs. where do you see shame in the desire or need to take viagra? who are we to judge whether a public employee should live with or without the benefit of a fulfilling sex life?

i usually find that people frequently seek to claim to have the right answer or the wrong answer and rarely will they seek to find what is the best answer.

Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians

Originally Posted by njbchbum

Re the first part of your statement about unions refusing to take a decrease in their [negotiated - my reminder] increase and their lack of sympathy for the people who pay their healthy wages.....
my first point is that the members of any municipal/county/state pension plan is probably a taxpayer of that municipality/county/state who is and has been paying their taxes there all along. in the words of jimmy buffett - we are the people our parents warned us about.

Re the last point of refusing to give up viagra, i contend that giving up any prescription drug begins the slippery slope - what drug will you want eliminated next? it reminds me of the arguments during the health care legislation debates about diminished care for the elderly or the newborns who have little hope of survival because of serious birth defects.

this point could be one that might be better addressed by asking the union members to pay a greater share of certain categories of drugs. where do you see shame in the desire or need to take viagra? who are we to judge whether a public employee should live with or without the benefit of a fulfilling sex life?

i usually find that people frequently seek to claim to have the right answer or the wrong answer and rarely will they seek to find what is the best answer.

Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians

Are you saying that paying taxes with taxpayer money is the same as private sector paying taxes with private sector money?

That is almost like the argument of the stimulus money creating jobs. Taxpayer money does not create jobs, it only redistributes taxpayers money.

With unemployment at 22% and millions of people without jobs and losing their houses, I would think there would be more empathy from public employees.

Maybe a drastic cut in public employees would straighten out their priorities. Sex enhancing drugs are for pleasure should not be subsidized by taxpayers of any sector.

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

You said, "neither of us benefits from automatic pension increases." In the article, the author states, "Note that all we are talking about here is
reducing the rate at which the pensions of retired public employees will increase. This at a time when private sector employees are being laid off, seeing their salaries cut, and their investments have declined in value."

So really the article doesn't reflect on you or your pension. I agree with you about blanket statements. Not every state is in the same dire straits that New Jersery's pension plan has found itself in. New Jersey isn't the only state in this shape either. But on the other hand, some states are still doing okay comparitively.

I don't live in New Jersey, but I like what I've read and heard about Chris Christie. It is a beautiful state and I hope he can help turn things around.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../08/026948.php

glad you share the fear of blanket statements - and those who swallow them hook, line and sinker without choking and then adopt them as fact!

glad that you appreciate the beauty of new jersey, too. we have so much from mountains to beaches and from rivers to oceans! i don't think there is anything as beautiful as walking thru the woods of north jersey in the the spring and fall or canoeing thru the streams of the pinelands down south in the same seasons; that is, except for spending all of the seasons just a mile from the beaches and oceanfront where i live! let's just not talk about tourists!

chris christie is a refreshing governor for this state. i cannot remember a predecessor who did not raid and rape different parts of our treasury in order buy the votes of the special interest group de jour. and i mean every last one of them - regardless of their party affiliation. the most disappointing performer was christine todd whitman; who when she saw the value of the various pension funds had the pension commission and treasurer change the valuation from one of actual cash value [we're talking dollar for dollar value here] to a valuation based on investment value - the stock market was on its non-stop meteoric rise in those days so the change in valuation did not suffer until the stock market began to tank. had we remained on the actual cash value of the contributions of the pension members it would never be in the shape that it is today. every governor since then has used whatever smoke and mirror gimmick they think the pubolic will swallow to spend beyond the state's ability to pay - just so they can leave a legacy...too bad i can't live on their legacies!

we have not had a good governor since thomas kean...a governor who required a five year plan and an annual review and report on same, the governor who would not rob peter to pay paul, the governor who practiced 'the politics of inclusion'.

Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians

see response in-line:

Originally Posted by Pats2010

Are you saying that paying taxes with taxpayer money is the same as private sector paying taxes with private sector money?
.....i am saying that i am one of those same taxpayers that you think needs sympathy! i just happen to have less of my taxes redistributed [in theory] because some of them come back to me in the form of a pension that i worked bloody hard to earn!

That is almost like the argument of the stimulus money creating jobs. Taxpayer money does not create jobs, it only redistributes taxpayers money.
.....if taxpayer money is better redistributed it could create private sector jobs; it did when i hired employees at the private hospital where i worked and thru the ceta jobs program the gov't paid the employee salary for three months and then my payroll picked up the cost for that new employee we had had the chance to screen, evaluate and establish improved performance. we hired lots of returning to work moms because of that program.

With unemployment at 22% and millions of people without jobs and losing their houses, I would think there would be more empathy from public employees.
.....who says there is no empathy...my personnel tech lost her house and moved her family back into an apartment on the outskirts of newark, nj - have ya seen those crime stats lately? - do you think only private sector folks are losing their homes? c'mon!

Maybe a drastic cut in public employees would straighten out their priorities.
.....be careful what you ask for...my old office has not hired one new employee in 5 yrs!...they have improved their processing routines/response with automation via computer and now the private sector employees and taxpayers are complaining that they cannot get their work processed thru the mail! there aren't enough bodies to process the work!

Sex enhancing drugs are for pleasure should not be subsidized by taxpayers of any sector.
.....i repeat, who are you to judge? and i ask, where did you get your pharmaceutical degree/experience - rexall? how knowledgeable are you re the uses of viagra - beyond what you hear or read? i am glad that your statement is an opinion rather than a fact.

postscript - from the wikipedia encyclopedia:
PDE5 inhibitors are clinically indicated for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Sildenafil citrate, one of the PDE5 inhibitors, is also indicated for the treatment of pulmonary hypertension, and the chemically related drugs tadalafil and vardenafil have been studied as other possible treatments for this disease. Sildenafil, the prototypical PDE5 inhibitor, was originally discovered during the search of a novel treatment for angina. Recent studies are exploring its potential for increasing neurogenesis after stroke.

Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians

Originally Posted by njbchbum

see response in-line:



postscript - from the wikipedia encyclopedia:
PDE5 inhibitors are clinically indicated for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Sildenafil citrate, one of the PDE5 inhibitors, is also indicated for the treatment of pulmonary hypertension, and the chemically related drugs tadalafil and vardenafil have been studied as other possible treatments for this disease. Sildenafil, the prototypical PDE5 inhibitor, was originally discovered during the search of a novel treatment for angina. Recent studies are exploring its potential for increasing neurogenesis after stroke.

Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians

Since we are picking and chosen things Wikipedia, here is another tid bit from the same source.

Postscript from Wikipedia:

Phase I clinical trials under the direction of Ian Osterloh suggested that the drug had little effect on angina, but that it could induce marked penile erections.

Originally Posted by Pats2010

Since we are picking and chosen things Wikipedia, here is another tid bit from the same source.

Postscript from Wikipedia:

Phase I clinical trials under the direction of Ian Osterloh suggested that the drug had little effect on angina, but that it could induce marked penile erections.

so what!

we all know about the primary success of this medication; i merely wanted to point to a side that you did not mention which was that there are other medical uses being sought. so you found a failure of that research - so what? is that a reason in your mind to forgo continuing/additional research?

pats2010 - you have an opinion re this issue - as do i. we are each entitled to our opinion. and i recognize that there is no point in trying to convince you of mine nor to post battling wikipedias. each of us will find a better use of our time to challenge more important issues facting us.

today i want to know why our state dept is sending imam faisal off on a muslim outreach trip to tell the world [or whever he is going] how great it is to be a muslim in american today...will he also seek financing for his nyc mosque while on a trip the us of a is paying for? why is this guy the only guy worthy of sending such an emissary? why are we doing this anyway regardless of who we might send!!!!! how much is this costing us???? if it wasn't a dream, last nite i saw hilary on tv last nite condemning the slayings of the aide workers in afghanistan - why is she sending this guy out on tour?

pats2010 - thanx for you spirit! don't lose a lick of it! and don't back down from the cause as long as you believe in it!