This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Newt Gingrich Pushing Bill To Allow States To File Bankruptcy Allowing Them To Renege On Pension And Benefit Obligations
Some unpleasant news for pensioned workers who believe that their insolvent state will be able to afford ridiculous legacy pensions in perpetuity. According to Pensions and Investment magazines, Newt Gingrich is pushing for legislation that will allow insolvent states to be taken off bailout support and file bankruptcy, in the process allowing them to renege on pension and other benefit obligations promises to state workers. And if there is anything that will get government workers' blood pressure to critical levels, it is the threat that money they had taken for granted is about to be lifted, courtesy of living in an insolvent state (pretty much all of them). And obviously what this means for equity investors in assorted muni investments is that a complete wipe out is becoming a possibility, as Meredith Whitney's prediction, which everyone was quick to mock and ridicule, is about to come back with a vengeance.
From P&I:
Proponents of the measure — which include Americans for Tax Reform, a Washington lobby group that fights tax increases — said the legislation is desperately needed to clear the way for struggling states to slash costs before they go belly up, and should be regarded as a preemptive move that could preclude the need for massive federal bailouts.
“It's in the short-term and long-term interests of government workers and taxpayers to start those reforms now, rather than having to pick up the pieces after a crash landing,” ATR President Grover Nor-quist said in an interview.
“We are working with people inside and outside of Congress on this issue,” said Joe DeSantis, a spokes-man for Mr. Gingrich, whom Mr. DeSantis said is considering a bid to be the Republican presidential candidate in 2012.
Sur enough, the response has been fast, furious, and very vocal:
State and union officials vow to fight the bankruptcy initiative, which they fear would undermine state autonomy and be used to reduce promised benefits to government workers.
“I am unaware of any public pension plan that is requesting federal assistance,” said Keith Brainard, NASRA research director.
“Exaggerated reports on the financial condition of public pension plans are being used as a scare tactic to justify federal intervention,” Mr. Brainard added.
Said Mark McCullough, a spokesman for the Service Employees International Union, Washington: “This is another right-wing attack on behalf of their (the GOP's) anti-middle class, big-business donor base.
“It would amount to not just another attack on working families, but an attack on everyone from investors to retirees who would see the economy reel from the ripple effects of state bankruptcy as they pursue the goal of making American workers expect no better pay or benefits than workers in the developing world.”
So far, proponents of the legislation said they have not yet recruited a congressional sponsor for the proposed measure. “We're still shopping for the guy who is going to carry it,” Mr. Norquist said.
Nonetheless, union executives are concerned that the proposal — which has been promoted on conservative websites recently — is part of a well-orchestrated and hitherto underground campaign now surfacing as Republicans settle into leadership positions in the new Congress.
“This idea carries major negative financial implications for the states, their creditors and the companies that do business with them,” said Charles Loveless, director of legislation for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Washington. “A state going into bankruptcy would send shock waves through the states and could very well undermine our fragile national economic recovery,” he said.
“It is incredible to me that proponents of this portray themselves as advocates of state rights when what they're really doing is driving states into the ground,” Mr. Loveless added. “It's clearly in an effort to renege on public employee collective bargaining contracts.”
The good news: not all states will file for bankruptcy if this proposal becomes law. Just most.
But Mr. Norquist said that, assuming the proposal becomes law, not every state would file for bankruptcy — a right that municipal governments already have under Chapter 9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
“If you don't have this (a state bankruptcy process), you have New York, Illinois and California running off the rails because there's no way to fix their problems ... They've got these contracts with government workers that you can't alter,” Mr. Norquist said.
He said restructuring benefit obligations doesn't necessarily mean cutting the amount of money a retiree gets; it could involve freezing a public defined benefit plan and enrolling new employees in a defined contribution plan.
Look for some more serious outflows from muni funds, and notable volatility in muni bonds, as this latest challenge to the state bailout "certainty" is digested.
courtesy of @Biz_Reporter
»
- 23057 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
You may perceive anything you want, but you failed to answer the questions. The questions will permit you to get beyond your individual perceptions and into an rational analysis based upon facts, history, and law. In short, we either enjoy the rule of law or we don't. If we do, then the taxpayer, through his duly elected government, must meet its legal obligations. If we don't, then ordered liberty is destroyed, and we suffer either chaos or tyranny. Nothing you write suggests you even grasp this simple either/or proposition.
Do you believe that when there is no money left to give you that you will still be given money?
First, if I were a government employee expecting my hard-earned pension, I would not be in a position to be "given" money. It is money that YOU, the taxpayer, promised to pay me for foregoing bigger money up front. Second, if YOU, the taxpayer, renege on your obligation, then you are committing an evil act. YOU have to live with that, and YOU will have to answer for that, whether here or in the afterlife. I cannot control what the taxpayer, through his government, will do with this matter. I can only control what I know to be the truth--that these pensions, across the board, are a public responsibility, and that to renege on them is to destroy the rule of law and this nation. Again, the end result in either chaos or tyranny, neither a place I want to be.
Well where was the rule of law when the .gov decided to stiff the GM bondholders? Where was the rule of law when people double dipped, padded their retirements, gamed the system? What do you expect people will pay for all that? Its unsustainable.
YOU should know, as you elected the men and women who managed it. YOU must be responsible as a citizen, taxpayer, and voter. Blame everyone else for YOUR failure to win the day. You want change, get active and go make change. But do it within the constraints of the law.
AYFKM... I was busy earning money in the private sector paying your pension. I do not have the time to become active, feed my family and make the change as I just make enough to survive and stay off benefits. People like you knew it, still you decided to game the system so that I would work harder for you paying you gold plated benefits. You do not give a F about others who support you as long as you get your cheese. You know what, F your benefits, I dont care when I can barely feed my family working 14 hour days when you get to do a 9-5 with benefits and a 6 fig pension for life. F that.
you erroneously equate "Rule of Law" with government. the two are incompatible. Rule of Law is a condition that occurs when the unalienable human right of self determination is respected. A society ruled by the Rule of Law does not permit coercion. Government is a monopoly of coercion. The two are incompatible.
Government is not a "necessary evil" its just an evil. Governments exist to facilitate and provide legitimacy for very clever, psychopathic thieves. Until recently, governments didn't even make a pretense of being anything else. Gang leaders called themselves King and claimed to own all of the land and all of the people in the land. They let their slaves keep enough to barely feed themselves and stole all of the rest, at sword point. These kings used religion as their cover, claiming that God himself had given them the right to enslave everyone. Once religion began to give way to science, the Divine Right cover story didn't work so well anymore, and the King's henchmen wanted more action, so they came up with a new con, the notion of "by the people, for the people." The cover story has changed, but the purpose remains.
Governments are just successful gangs. Governments claim that for civilization to exist, there must be a government to impose order. Thats just bullshit propaganda. Civilization exists first, and then is preyed upon by gangs, until one gang wins.
Wars are not struggles between nations, they are gang wars. Hitler's gang versus Churchill's gang and Stalin's gang. And Churchill gets on the phone to Roosevelt and asks for help to beat this Hitler gang. What difference does it make to the people which gang is in charge? A less cruel gang is preferable to a more cruel gang but is it worth risking your life for, or more importantly, your children's lives?
Humanity would prosper infinitely with the removal of all of these gangs, and all that has to happen is a recognition of the illegitimacy of the gangs. Because the gangs are not viable if the citizenry opposes them.
Its the biggest hoax of all time, the necessity of these gangs. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.
so, no, i don't owe you anything.
I--repeat I--do nothing of the kind. I view the federal government as one that has greatly exceeded its Constitutional mandate. I do what I can to campaign (limited by position), contribute, and vote. I also do what I can by coming onto sites like this and trying to educate people about history, law, economics, and common sense principles.
The rule of law in this country still affords us a great breadth and depth of liberty. It still affords us private property rights. It still affords us the opportunity to engage in free enterprise. Granted, it has been grossly eroded over the years since Lincoln launched his War to Awake Leviathan, and we must stop the federal encroachment upon our preferred way of life. But I would not equate government and rule of law.
That said, the rule of law mandates that a people meet its obligations. Here, the people, the taxpayer, through its elected officials, made bargains with people to perform services for certain pay and benefits. Those people met their end of the bargain. The people, the taxpayer, is obligated to meet its end of the bargain. The rule of law--emphatically NOT the government--requires this. If we equated the rule of law with government, then I would have no argument in favor of the people, the taxpayer, meeting its obligations. Such a tyranny can do what it pleases. THAT is exactly the point I make, over and over and over, about the rule of law. Yours is both a legal and moral obligation. Meet it.
i appreciate your well considered response. however, the only people that owe you money are the thieves that promised you the money, not people like me who are victims of the thievery of your bosses. there is no morally or ethically enforceable contract between me and your bosses. they have been stealing from me, my ancestors, and my children for centuries. they owe me a ton of loot as well. so you and me are pretty much in the same boat, that's why i don't have much sympathy for you. you've been screwed by them just like me.
Somebody (your sacred retirees) made a deal with criminals (the gov't), so the contract is null and void. QED
"Yours is both a legal and moral obligation. Meet it."
You are a delusional psychopath so far removed from reality it's startling.
WE did not make any such legal nor moral obligation to you, so you can take your "meet it" BS and SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS.
Thats just it..."the taxpayer". There is not enough taxpayers to prop up your pensions. It won't matter to long from now, the money is running out for all the government promises. We are broke! Where is the money coming from? The printing press thats where and when the majority of people figure this out, your pension will be zero.
This is starting to sound like the union who refuses to take a pay freeze or cut in benifits when the company tells them they don't have the money...they go on strike and everyone loses in the end!
"Second, if YOU, the taxpayer, renege on your obligation, then you are committing an evil act. YOU have to live with that, and YOU will have to answer for that, whether here or in the afterlife."
PURE BULLSHIT.
THIS attitude displayed right here is why taxpayers LOATHE government workers.
NO, taxpayers did NOT obligate themselves to pay your damn pension. Your scumbag sleezeball LEGISLATORS obligated YOUR EMPLOYER to pay your damn pension. YOUR EMPLOYER is now going BROKE, and that's just TOUGH SHIT, YOU LOSE.
No legitamacy issues with the many laws added to the books over the past couple of hundred years? Are the laws that favor some semblance of justice enforced across the board or is it selective enforcement in play? You have faith in a thoroughly corrupted system that has continually been marred over the years? Marred by a thousand cuts.
Think "catch-22".
The forcible, unsustainable and unpayable contracts made by a government against my will, and against common sense, do not thereby entail any moral or financial obligation on my part, or on the part of any citizen.
The fact is, most of the pension and other transfer payment obligations made by all levels of government are going to be defaulted on, because they MUST be defaulted on, because the funds simply do not and never will exist to pay all those Ponzi promises. As such, those contracts are ethically and practically null and void. All your whining and crying cannot change that reality. Contrary to what you seem to believe, blood cannot in fact be squeezed from a turnip.
The legal term is unenforceable contract.
"If you give me $1000 today, I will pay you back $1,000,000,000 and a moonbeam on my 145th birthday" Existing common law would require any judge in the union to throw that contract out and give you your $1000 back. No appeals court would overturn.
No. The term is bankruptcy... If you give me $1000 today, I'll fuck your ass later through laughably unsustainable policy.
The contracts are enforceable (each must be viewed individually, not in the aggregate)... they're just unpayable. The rights will be enforced through the bankruptcy process and, in all likelihood, a substantial haircut given...
Further, I'm really not sure how the process is going to even work... ok, so we agree to pay retirees $.20/$1.00, but that is akin to the government's attempt at reworking mortgages... the re-default rate, I'm guessing, would be huge... basically, it's get nothing or get nothing. I suppose we could get a one time payout to a third party to hold the proceeds as trustee in a structured settlement... but, who would want to do that given the insolvency of virtually all the states? [how is it that the union could be solvent but all the individual states would be bankrupt?].
In the end, this step is absolutely necessary for our domestic default, i.e. austerity, to begin in earnest. I just hope we choose repudiation sooner than later because the pains of austerity will be... monumental. SSI and the Medicare/caid hacking and pillaging will begin shortly also. Eventually, I suspect it will still be impossible to pay our international creditors... but, we'll screw over ourselves domestically to our collective boiling point before default/repudiation.
I do not disagree. I see the spectrum like this:
Breech of contact -> UnEnforceability -> Default/insolvency -> Bankruptcy
->Arbitration->The Ben Bernanke and his printing press -> Reverting to outright Fuedalism
The spectrum is not linear regarding efficiency or justice served, hence why it is political and will be solved by congress critters.
During Ben's last appearance before congress they asked him about state defaults. He did his usual "It has never happened in the last 160 years." Congress said "Well is the fed looking at options to 'help' in such an event?"
He said "No". They said "Could you and your super smart people look into it?"
We all know what that means. Dollar bills are going to be printed in scientific notation. 1E4, 1E6, etc. Nobody likes it, but nobody in our ego based world would accept the austerity you mentioned. The character of people able to stomach rampant inflation (not withstanding the arizona shooter) is greater than the character of people who would not accept points to the left on that spectrum. I blame the incentive models introduced in the last century by MBAs and Psychologists.
EDIT: I'll take the principles of spiritually and non-violence over a McMansion and new car any day. (motivator/hygiene)
Sorry, not to be a stickler, but you're using a legal term of art. An unenforceable contract is not the same as an uncollectible contract. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unenforceable
The contracts are absolutely enforceable... they're just not collectible against an insolvent party.
"EDIT: I'll take the principles of spiritually and non-violence over a McMansion and new car any day. (motivator/hygiene)"
+1,000,000,000,000
Your homosexual fantasies really have no place on this thread. Isn't there another thread for you to engage in that?
If you feel this way, you don't believe in either representative government nor ordered liberty. And, if you believe in neither of those, you choose anarchy or tyranny. Brilliant.
You've yet to tell us where the money is to come from.....
What about the States which have contracts with private contractors to supply landscaping services, office supplies, janitorial services, storage, transportation, computer programming, etc. There is more than one State not meeting these daily obligations. Those companies have employees who may be depending upon some retirement plans from their employers. Do we extend your "contractual" courtesies to these folks as well?
Squeezing blood from a turnip doesn't apply here.
Those promises made by those legislators were FRAUDULENT because they did NOT provide the money to meet those promises.
Making a promise of future payment on the assumption that tax revenues will be there and funds won't be squandered is FOOLISH and FRAUDULENT.
If someone tried to operate a private pension fund like the government does, the fund would be SHUT DOWN and they would be PROSECUTED FOR FRAUD.
Government pensions funded as-you-go by taxes are PONZI SCHEMES, just like social security is a ponzi scheme.
I know social security will be gone by the time I retire even though I pay into it now, but you don't hear me whining about "those future taxpayers need to be sure I get my SS". In all likelihood the entire federal government will be gone by then.
You are oversimplifying the issue and, ultimately, appear to be substituting morality with the rule of law. The law can and will change, on a daily basis. The premise of the entire article is to change the law to develop a procedure and allow for states to file for bankruptcy. So, once the law changes, in order to uphold the "rule of law" you would be required to encourage states to default on unpayable obligations... in other words, once insolvency is triggered, the rule of law would provide for/require bankruptcy protection.
Further, as rational actors, we are paid what we negotiate to be paid. Hence, the rise in unions and usurpation of rudimentary democratic principles. If we negotiate to be paid less now and a greater fixed sum over our retirement, etc., then we run the risk of the solvency of the other party. Any sums not paid presently are subject to some degree of risk. The problem is that this risk, like most all other risks, has been sorely undervalued. In short, it was a speculative endeavor that has not panned out (due in large part to the obviously unsustainable benefits negotiated)... just like purchasing a house... just like anything.
I think you are overlooking the obvious boundaries of contract law...
good post(s)
Thank you for some rational posts worth exploring.
Are you familiar with the term ex post facto? Of course laws change. But laws cannot be applied retroactively to enable one party to a bargain to renege on its obligations. To do so is to make the law a whore, and if she is a whore, the does not rule, but is ruled. In other words, we suffer tyranny.
As for the taxpayer's moral obligation, he has that regardless of what his government may do. He cannot hide behind his government and point his finger and say "government is responsible for this evil." HE, the taxpayer, is the one responsible. Even if tyrants change laws to destroy the rule of law, the people behind the tyrant are also responsible for their evil in not meeting their obligations.
THIS IS NOT DIFFICULT. IT IS SIMPLE. DON"T MAKE IT ANY MORE COMPLEX THAN IT IS. THESE TRUTHS WILL SET YOU FREE.
I think I see the problem. Laws are changed and applied retroactively and they do renege on obligations (bankruptcy law), the law is a whore and is ruled as we do suffer tyranny. Obviously, you are just not aware of life in the United States and it's quirks.
As a taxpayer, not paying for pensions would literally set me free in many ways. All joking aside, until the government asks me to pay said taxes- I am not responsible to. Tax rates are not being increased, in fact, many are decreasing.
The real debt, is that created by the Federal Reserve. Here, I have no say in the creation of this debt as the government has no real control over it's issuance or auditing it's issuance either. It is a private banking corporation answerable to a board, many of whom are foreign banks.
The real tyrants are the bankers and we do not elect them or stand behind them. Of course, the truth will set you free- unfortunately, the truth is subjective.
I think his problem is that he still believes in unicorns and money trees. The problem is that the pensions, etc., are a significant boot on the necks of states, effectively rendering many, if not all, insolvent. If a state does not have the money to pay pensioners, then how do pensioners get paid? Magic? In short, the proposed law is simply the acknowledgment of real world conditions...
Further, there is a legal distinction between laws with retroactive effect and ex post facto laws... for a few examples, simply go to wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto . I would suspect that the criminal realm is going to be much more highly protected than the civil arena, especially in an area as highly regulated as bonds. For example, the rate of taxation/tax treatment can change on a particular bond... is this merely a retroactive change, or an illegal ex post facto law?
Also, what proposal do you suggest to ensure all of the pensions are paid in full? Increases to my taxes? What did I have to do with their increases in benefits? Did I make the promise? This discrepancy cannot be reconciled. Should I be liable for all the acts of my "representatives"?
Here are your choices, default/haircut or increase in printing, which means devaluation of benefits. Pick your poison... but quit trying to defy gravity.
A few conclusions after trying to enlighten you today:
(1) Very few ZH posters are interested in the rule of law, ordered liberty, private property, free enterprise, or moral obligation;
(2) Most ZH posters are interested in lining their own pockets at the expense of those who served them honorably for 30 years;
(3) Very few ZH posters understand life, freedom and responsibility, and moral responsibility;
(4) Very few ZH posters want to accept that they made bad choices for themselves and that those choices are why they are where they are today;
(5) Most ZH posters seem to resent government employees because those people made prudent choices 30 years ago to secure their retirements;
(6) We are all in for terrible times if the likes of posters on ZH ever become any sort of factor in American politics, law, and economics.
Peace.
A few conclusions after viewing your posts:
(1) ZH posters are interested in the rule of law, ordered liberty, private property, free enterprise, and moral obligation, however we choose to dispense with your views of these things;
(2) The only way a public employee has any money is because it was taken from a private worker. In this sense, you may consider the conflict a zero sum game, both sides being guilty, but one more reprehensible given the revenues collected by the government are under the threat of the gun;
(3) Very few ZH posters feel like they are capable of judging whether the other posters understand life, freedom and responsibility, and moral responsibility given the nature of the medium;
(4) Wrong. Buy the fucking dip;
(5) Most ZH posters seem to resent government employees because those people have systematically unionized and collectively bargained to create insurmountable lobbies and to give themselves benefits that have drained the public coffers and require default, devaluation, or an increase in taxes (presuming the former are not inevitable, but maybe just to spite us for a while);
(6) We are in for terrible times because of decades of systemic abuse by leaches of power and usurpation, this includes not only public actors, but private as well. Systemic collapse is inevitable and it has nothing to do with ZH, although a reasonably prudent media source may hasten our demise given the degree of farcism and lack of media coverage thereof. However, ZH could never be reasonably considered the source of the collapse.
We hope for peace, but I fear our present trends, economic and political, will yield little of the sort.
PS, I do not speak for nor represent ZH in any way... just my own observations.
I tried about a month ago on a similar thread to enlighten people on ZH about not allowing their greed and selfishness to lead them down the path of resentment of those that have served them in the public sector for many years. Unfortunately, Watauga, most of ZH's readers are past the point of no return. They have accepted their masters' lies as truth, and cannot be persuaded otherwise. They would not know liberty or free enterprise if it slapped them in the face. All you can do is wish them well and rely upon the hard lessons of life to open their eyes.
My mother, both sets of grandparents, and entire gambit of in-laws are all state employees. This has nothing to do with some agenda of hate towards governmental employees. It has to do with some semblance of objectivity. The only reason why any of them have any money is because it was stolen from me and those similarly situated. I have partaken in public benefits and so I expect some degree of payment to them is necessary. However, nothing in our arrangement required the aggregate of their (your?) brethren to milk the system dry and ensure a worse place for me to live.
You seem to think there is some middle ground here.... that we can come to some amicable agreement whereby the public payrolls and private will find some perfect harmony. There will not. The government payrolls will (have) expand without mercy and to our detriment. This is a zero sum game... what the government does not take, I get to keep. The pie is no longer expanding, it is contracting, but the debt remains. We are presently engaged in a battle over entitlements of all kinds and types... e.g. we're both on the same side of the SSI issue. However, presently, state employees have not felt the pain of deleveraging like their private counterparts... it's time to spread the love, brother. (and I'm not talking about a failure to implement a cost of living increase).
You act like governmental employees make some vow of altruism to join the ranks. If so, how do you enjoy a pay check? By all means, donate the entirety of your service to the public. Oh, you think you deserve some of that paycheck and aren't ready to give it all away just yet? Join the club and see you on the field. If you want to espouse the virtues of public service, do so when we no longer have a volunteer army and citizens of all ages and walks of life desperate to join the ranks. Mother Teresa was an economist and so are you.
"The pie is no longer expanding, it is contracting, but the debt remains"
in a nutshell
Deserve's got nuthin to do with it
The money isn't there and won't be. At some point the spotlight has to shine onto the gov't actors for their failure to execute their duties competently and without corruption. The pension savings got spent; the plans were systematically underfunded so that gov't actors could go on spending binges for their cronies' benefit.
The wanton and ubiquitous malfeasance of government actors does not establish an involuntary servitude contract with the entire population. Such a notion is untenable.
Trillions are being diverted to war and financial fraud.
How about ending the MIC and bankster subsidies first before deciding what is "affordable"?
Also, how about making some distinction between lower-end gov't workers who do not receive the so-called "exorbitant pensions you decry.
Yes, some politicians and their upper level political appointees are receiving undue payment, and deserve to be targeted for cutback.
Trillions are being diverted to war and financial fraud.
It's a wee bit more complicated than that. These are state issues, not federal ones.
JLee2027
Yes, our three-layered government conveniently makes it appear complicated.
But the overall economy and all the issues about what our society can "afford" are intertwined.
As I wrote elsewhere,
"Professional engineers warn the roads, rails, electrical grid, sewage systems, dams, levees, water pipelines, and bridges have not been maintained, repaired, or replaced as needed. Trillions of dollars are needed just to bring the systems up to minimal standards of safety and usage. Trillions and trillions more to upgrade to world-class.
But we will continue to spend double the percentage GDP that others spend on similar healthcare in order to subsidize the insurance and health industries. We’ll allocate trillions more to keep financial speculators afloat. We’ll spend trillions more to kill illiterate peasants half-way around the world, prop up drug mobsters, and enrich warfare merchants. We’ll build more prisons, persevere in the counter-productive drug “war”, and cut back municipal schools. We’ll pay for more NSA, TSA, and Homeland policing of ourselves"
The issues may be "complicated", but they should not be compartmentalized.
duplicate post deleted.
The pension "savings" are not spent, whatever they are. The pension funds, likewise, are not spent, because most of them have not been received by the government in the form of taxes on its citizens. The pension funds will be received as revenue and spent as authorized and obligated. If the taxpayer, through his duly elected government, reneges on his obligations to the pensioner, then the taxpayer suffers all of the consequences of that evil--either chaos or tyranny.
The federal government is insolvent and bankrupt.
Most states are insolvent and bankrupt.
Many cities and municipalities are insolvent and bankrupt, or will be soon.
Many Americans have not a penny to their name, and those that do are facing diminishing incomes and standards of living.
All your bitching and whining about "fairness" is not going to summon blood from a turnip.
Pensions will be reneged upon, because they MUST be.
I agree that those doing all this "bitching and whining" need to suck it up and accept that THEY need to be responsible for themselves. The government employee did not put them where they are. THEY put themselves where they are. So stop pissing and moaning and, if you want to change your life, do it.
Ultimately, there may not be any fair or just about a pension-grab. However, we must consider our individual souls in such a theft. Do we want to become a part of it, or do we want to fight it. It is not unlike the Communists in Russia in 1917 or the Maoists in China in 1945 killing off and stealing from those they did not want to compete against. It is murder and theft even if it is "patriotic, anti-government Americans" doing the killing and stealing.
So, for the sake of the rule of law, which is the foundation of our liberty, private property, and free enterprise, and for the sake of our souls, let's meet our taxpayer obligation to public sector employees. If we don't, we suffer enormous social, political, economic, and moral consequences.
So I guess you aren't part of the Tea Party idea of limited government?
I think we suffer far worse consequences by allowing an over-bloated, bankrupt government to continue to be more important than the people it's supposed to serve. It's like living under a 300 pound gorilla who's laying on top of you.
No, I'm done with that....as are most Americans I think.
I think you horribly miss Watauga's point. HE is the one advocating LIMITED government. What you and your cronies are advocating is tyranny. You would empower the State to renege on its lawful obligations. If you do this, you empower the government to do anything it pleases. THAT is his point, and every time one of you writes some other piece of bullshit you make his point. A government that would take his pension WILL take your liberty, your property, and your life.
I think if you read enough of Watauga's points, you'll find he's pointless.
What am I advocating is a new currency backed by Gold and Silver. All the debts of FRN's will reset to zero. And yes, all the pensions will be gone. I think all other alternatives, half-compromises, etc; are worse. It's a nightmare to contemplate, but we could spend 50 years trying to fix something that cannot be fixed. The system is broken, game over.
If the taxpayer, through his duly elected government, reneges on his obligations to the pensioner...
If your point is the people are at fault for not monitoring what their elected officials, then you are correct.
When these same government officials do not perform to their oath, and the authorities responsible for monitoring these do not perform their assigned duties and these government officials act with malfeasance (as said above), then why is this "contract" not void?
If an agent acting on your behalf does not do their job, and acts illegally, not sure the contract is enforceable.
Besides, the money does not exist and the people will not stand by destitute while government workers skate on fat pensions.
sschu
The contract is not void because YOU made the choice to place those people into positions to make decisions for you. It would be like financial corporation X knowingly hiring Madoff to bilk its clients of all their money and then saying, when the plot is revealed, it was Madoff's fault, not ours, and expecting then not to be held responsible. Sorry, you knowingly hired Madoff and, therefore, you are responsible. You cannot put Bush, Cheney, Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Frank, Dodd, Kennedy. . . into office and then say that you are not responsible for what they hath wrought. Sorry, you are responsible for what they hath wrought--both legally and morally.
Sorry, you knowingly hired Madoff and, therefore, you are responsible. You cannot put Bush, Cheney, Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Frank, Dodd, Kennedy. . . into office and then say that you are not responsible for what they hath wrought. Sorry, you are responsible for what they hath wrought--both legally and morally.
Not sure this is true legally, but I am not a lawyer. It is most certainly not true morally.
In the end the people will not be held hostage to the absurdities of the public unions for pay, bennies and pensions.
Back in the 80s most companies went to a defined contribution program (401Ks), not a defined benefit program for this exact reason. Those who bought into the idea of the tooth fairy, the idea that these defined benefits would be delivered regardless of the cost to the tax payers are the ones living in dream land. For these people to expect the tax payers to dramatically reduce their standard of living to pay these bennies is the truly immoral part of the discussion.
sschu
"If the taxpayer, through his duly elected government, reneges on his obligations to the pensioner, then the taxpayer suffers all of the consequences of that evil--either chaos or tyranny"
We don't give a DAMN about your LAME ASS attempt at putting a guilt trip on us.
WELCOME to CHAOS and TYRANNY asshole. Better get used to it.
Lord knows there have been more than a few dedicated trolls and outright psychos in this forum before, but I must say I have NEVER seen anyone like this Watauga who was so vehemently determined to try and convince himself that his own personal unicorn is going to give him a ride to some (taxpayer-funded) pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Sorry, Watauga, but all your hysterical desperation cannot change reality, or the fact that you WILL be screwed out of your government pension. Grow up and suck it up already, you pathetic, entitlement-obsessed basket case.
Damn straight.
Govt workers like that pathetic asshole Watauga and their entitlement mentalities are going to precipitate the taxpayer revolution they fear so much.
That moron even alleges some sort of spiritual penalty accruing to taxpayers if they don't pony up his beloved pension. HE's the one who better be worrying about a spiriutal penalty ...and he better be thinking about the possibility of irate taxpayers sending his sorry ass on to receive that spiritual penalty if he keeps antagonizing those taxpayers with his elitist bullshit.
Do you have a point?
watauga,
Do you know what the "ONLY" solution to your preaching to the Choir here is ?
and its only 1 word long.
"PRINT"
Problem is there are only so many trees.
Got it ?
That is, granted, ONE solution. There are others. The federal government, if the PEOPLE would grow some strength and courage, COULD be substantially reduced to its core, Constitutional, authorities and responsibilities. Justice, State, DoD, CIA (or a new FOREIGN intelligence service), Commerce, Transportation, and possibly Energy are the only NECESSARY federal agencies. Do away with all the others. Reduce those, noted above, that remain. The PRIMARY responsibility of federal government is national defense, so, protect the nation but reduce "permanent" global troop stationing. Achieve global presence through the Navy. The domestic agencies (Commerce, Transportation, Energy) must be limited solely to that which promotes and preserves interstate commerce. The PEOPLE could cut government, if THEY truly desired to do so, by 25% to 35% almost overnight. And this could be done within the rule of law via elections of men and women committed to RESTORING a Constitutionally-based government.
As for the pensions, the government must meet those obligations. If it does not, all is lost. If you think your IRA, 401K, private bank account, or even safe deposit box is safe at that point, you are sorely mistaken.
This has to do with the RULE OF LAW. It must be preserved, and it cannot be preserved if the government reneges on its obligations.
I admit that the likely outcome is massive printing of dollars, devaluing the dollar to meet these obligations, which, effectively, is not meeting the obligations. It is a tragedy that the taxpayer, THE PEOPLE, CHOSE, to do this to what was once the greatest nation in history. But, once Lincoln won his war against the sovereign Confederate States of America, the writing of Leviathan's story was already on the wall.
WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE RULE OF LAW THE GOVERNMENT CAN RENEG ON ITS OBLIGATIONS. PERIOD. END OF STORY.
Sovereign CDS, bitchezzz!!!!!
Absolutely. I believe the Fed has/had the right to reneg on specie payment as well a la Nixon shutting the Gold window.
Well there, Mr. Orwell, one has to love your "reasoning." If the government reneges on its obligations, then that government is not a government of laws. It cannot destroy the law "within the confines of law," as the destruction of the law destroy its confines. THAT is the very point. Wow.
Aside from the fact that THE LAW provides for a governmental default, your concept of the law is naively optimistic and more suitable to an academic vacuum. The problem is, the rule of law is beholden to the rule of economics. Even if states are not permitted to file for bankruptcy, how do you propose that pensioners be paid from a bankrupt state? I'm curious...
And the rule of economics is beholden to the rule of the sword. . . we live in interesting times.
In large part, that is what economics is... our economic engine is solely reliant upon the success of our military hegemony. But, this relationship is mutually dependent also, given the arm of the military requires economic blood to function.
Yes, I agree that if you take away all meaningful ability for citizens to peaceably affect change, they may be inclined to turn to violence... but the economic engine may only be wobbled if this occurs... not necessarily ceased. You presume the victor.
As all those of Asian decent who were rounded up and forced into "camps" during WWII for national security, or (since they are all dead) read about the martial law Lincoln imposed for most of the civil war.
SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that the federal government can do almost it wants in the name of national security.
Typical totalitarian answer. Economics is never beholden to the sword. The military cannot eliminate commerce or exchange. You can make it more expensive, but you cannot stop it.
Whereas, the sword is always dependent on funding, which can cause it to over reach and result in conquest.
Economics will continue throughout.
The current government is one operating under emergency.
You can read (or used to be able to) it in most legistation declaring an emergency, federal and state. Do you ever wonder to what this 'emergency' pertains?
Could it have anything to do with the United States bankruptcy of 1933/34?
Yes they surely can, and they most certainly can and will recieve their just dues.
If your the Gvt, and you reneg , then every debt, and obligation MUST be reneged on,that includes everyone.
End of Story.
Nothing like the pick and choose Constitutionalist. There are no "core" responsibilities. The Constitution allows for the creation of legislation and that is what we have. It also allows for the creation of legislation in conflict with itself if approved by a "Supreme Court" appointed by the very people that want said laws created.
The "Rule of Law" in the hands of a police state style of government is an open ended contract to do whatever it wants and enforce the laws it wants to enforce. This is the weakness of the "Rule of Law"- it assumes it will be carried out by honest people.
However, it is clear that your only real concern is the payment of pensions- I'm assuming yours especially. This is the type of individualistic concern that puts the team in team effort.
Perhaps you should read the Constitution one day. You will see that there are enumerated powers set forth quite precisely. And, you will see something named the Tenth Amendment. Those powers not specifically granted to the federal government ARE RETAINED BY THE STATES. Thus, those powers not enumerated are retained by the States. The fact that Leviathan, through the Courts primarily, has destroyed the idea of limited government does not mean that this is the a core, if not THE CORE, tenet of the the Constitution. You are exactly 180 degrees wrong here.
The Constitution clearly sets forth the separation of powers into three branches. The Legislative branch is empower to write laws. Those laws are reviewed by the Supreme Court to insure they are in compliance with the Constitution.
You may argue Marbury v Madison all you want, but this is the reality.
Now, if you really want to make a sound argument, I suggest you study the effects of the Unified Commercial Code, Liability Law and Treaty law and their effects on the Constitution and common law in particular.
What you may be surprised to learn, is that the Constitution is ignored by the Representatives in government, that it is useless in the face of a Central Banking System and held hostage to a system that supplies candidates approved by an elite majority in order to conduct a government of their approval.
Once you realize that a coup has been perpetrated and that the present government is nothing more than a sham, you may find the world to be a very different place. Your patriotism and hope is naive and self destructive. There is an America, comprised of the people around you, friends and neighbors, people whom want nothing more than the best life they can work for and the safety of good community and a sound monetary substitute, but it is not your present government.
At least we're making those bastards work at it with real property law :) (massachusetts/fraudclosure).
If you believe that tripe, why don't you do something about it? Either you are a hypocrite, and truly don't believe it. Or you are a coward, afraid to do anything about it. Which would you be?
What makes you think I don't? Part of my response is attempting to educate the ignorant. I'm not doing very well with you. Pity.
Take your fantasy should / could / would bullshit somewhere else moron, we live in the REAL world here, where the federal government DOESN'T CARE about the Constitution, doesn't care about America, doesn't care about YOU, doesn't care about ME, doesn't care about ANY OF US, doesn't care about ANYTHING except STEALING AS MUCH WEALTH AS THEY CAN FROM AS MANY PEOPLE AS THEY CAN.
Your "Reign of Terror" comment makes no sense in this context. The Reign of Terror during the French Revolution was led by Robespierre and its purpose was to get rid of any political person or structure that he thought might challenge him. The Jacobins were the "radical radicals" and the Girondins the "moderate radicals" who were opposed to the more bloodthirsty tendencies of Robespierre, Marat, and so on. What does any of that have to do with bankrupt states reducing pensions???
Yes, now you are getting it. First, you come for the King. Next, the government employee. Next, whomever the one in power decides to come for. The point is not to provide a precise analogy to the historical events of the French Revolution. The point is to understand that French Revolution was the result of the collapse of the rule of law--it was all about the rule of men. These men would choose, arbitrarily if they wanted, whom to kill, what to steal, even what god to worship. It is the same old story of uprooted man who can only be rooted by the law. Without it, he is anarchy waiting to happen.
Okay, I understand your analogy. Fair enough. One thing about the French Revolution, though, was that everything Robespierre and the Reign of Terror did was according to the law. In other words, the Revolutionary Congress (I forget its actual name) would pass a law that would let the Committee of Public Safety convict people based on an accusation alone, and so on.
Exactly. Fancy pants may one day understand what the law really is... the rule of law is nothing more than a tool... most likely not readily utlized by the governed.
Exactly. Which is the distinction between the rule of law and the rule of government. The Reign of Terror was governed by the rule of government. The United States, for most of its history, has been governed by the rule of law. I admit we have strayed at times, and especially so in recent years (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, RMN, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and Obama have all had a hand in the expansion of Leviathan). What these posters are advocating is almost certainly a final step into tyranny.
As for me, I am advocating liberty. I already have enough tyranny in my life.
Law is tyranny, unless you care to show an example where it is not. Your own list of Presidents, while incomplete, is ample proof of the tyranny we suffer here. Law will always be used by an elite to the detriment of the people. All organizations practice a form of tyranny.
Your example of a navy seal is classic. A person murders innocent people attempting to defend their country, depletes resources in a reckless manner destroying human and resource capital in an attempt to allow some corporation to steal the resources of said country. This person is the sword of tyranny. Why? Because he believed what he was told. Complete irresponsibility. He never questioned his actions- like the Nazi he denigrates as a blight on history.
It is not enough to think you are doing right. It is not a defense to say, "I was doing what I was told". Responsibility implies a careful consideration of all the information available to you and making the best decision.
Your inability to measure risk, your misunderstanding of law regarding default and bankruptcy, your ignorance of economics and political theory are not an excuse. They are merely the methods of your undoing.
It just so happens moron that said pension you clamor about was created by rule-of-government, IN VIOLATION OF RULE-OF-LAW, and if you CARED ONE BIT about rule-of-law you would know that pension is a FRAUD, and you would NOT be expecting taxpayers to make good on it.
That you DO expect taxpayers to make good on it shows YOU are promoting the VERY TYRANNY you decry.
YOU are a two-faced, forked-tongue, double-minded psychopathic HYPOCRITE.
How many State workers that will receive a pension have used the bankruptcy process to discharge their obligations?
Answer: none or maybe just a couple.
Newt Gingrich ? ! these same old sorry political hacks have just got to go .... it's time. they've been around too long & do nothing but horrible damage to the average AMERICAN CITIZEN. Why if I didn't know better, I'd think that our voice doesn't even count here in this United States of America anymore !!!
great idea so you resort to a personal attack on the messenger?
talk about "same old"
the average american citizen doesn't have a fat gov. pension and i doubt would consider this "horrible damage"
"They have to go?" Just what are you espousing?
Obviously he's a Tea Partier
Absolutely necessary to survive.
Newty, Do It!
This is one piece of legislation that would find broad acceptance among the public. It would be wildly popular except with those of course that would finally have to disembark the gravy boat.
Do you think that federal and state employees pay taxes on income? Do you think that federal and state employees contribute to their own pension plans? Do you honestly think that the lines, if any, should be drawn between those who work in the public sector and those who work in the private sector? Do you believe that active duty military personnel are employees of the federal government? Do you believe that those who served on active duty, and retired under an explicit, legal retirement plan, should now be deprived of the benefits of that plan? Do you think that veterans who are retired due to disability, including those wounded in combat, should be deprived of veteran's disability retirement pay? Do you think state employees, such as teachers, firemen, and policemen, should, after 30 years of work for the state that was possible only because of great personal sacrifice, should now be deprived of the pension payments to which they are entitled, by law? Do you know what is meant by the term, "rule of law"? Do you care what is meant by the term, "rule of law"? Do you know what a Jacobin is? Do you know what happened in France during the Reign of Terror? Are you familiar with the U.S. Constitution? If so, do you support that Constitution?
Do you believe in fairy tales?
I don't.
The pension plans are fairy tales. Recipients worked less and less, retired earlier and live longer.
The math never added up. Few made rich in the good years when nobody paid attention.
Even you should understand that it cannot and will not go on forever.
No plan will be able to afford you 20+ years of retirement pay after 30+ years of fractional savings.
Take a math class.
Does anyone on ZH have the courage to answer the questions? Your post deserves no further attention unless you answer the questions posed.
It does not matter. I do not think you are listening. There is no money.
+1
There is no spoon. All government employees should be prepared to suck it up, like everyone else is having to do - lifer government employees.
This is far too tame. They need to shut down 1/3 to 1/2 the agencies of government, and I'd dare to say few Americans would even know and/or care and/or notice if that happened.
My grandmother went back to school in her 40s and got a job with the state when she was 45. She worked for 20 years and retired. She collected her pension until she died at the age of 95.
Good for grandma. I always knew that Gene Simmons came from solid stock.
Use of ad hominem attacks in debate is the hallmark of an opponent who is out of ammunition.
Great, so my desire to work hard for 50 years so I can reitre at 65 and maybe enjoy 5 years before I die is the supreme unholy evil of the universe?
Any taxes that government employees pay are meaningless.Its a ponzi within a ponzi.
Indeed. The "taxes" that government employees pay are simply a discount on their wages, which are paid by the real (non-government) workers.
You really are this stupid?
You sound like someone who gets a government check. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Yeah, I think he is. But it's not a very exclusive club.
See, if any of these people ever actually worked for the government, or even knew somebody who did (aren't there like, trillions of government employees lurking under our beds?), they'd know that many government employees pay taxes, pay for health insurance, pay into pensions, aren't in a hated union, and oftentimes makes less than they would in the private sector.
But of course that's far too difficult, so instead they run their mouths off about this stuff in between endless and equally vapid pontificating about personal responsibility.
Look everyone knows .gov employess are out to game the system from day one. They do not work as hard or as long as they have to in the private sector, many are just time card punchers. Monumental dimwits, who know they will not survive long in the private sector and instead choose to suck on the taxpayers money. Great benefits, great pension for little work. Too bad it is unsustainable. It never was, never will be. I hope the Newt's reforms cut the benefits in half. Is caculated such that there are no more double dippers, effective immediately, mandatory retirement at age 58 and clawbacks from idiots who made more than 90K in annual benefits. I am sure any party that takes this to action will win the next election.
"...they'd know that many government employees pay taxes..."
Government employees pay taxes on the salaries they receive from the money generated by taxes on the private sector, from Fortune 500 Companies, to mid-sized ones, to small businesses, individuals, and a million other 'receptacles of collection?'
Wow. That's so unfair.
Wait, maybe in your world, a positive feedback loop could be created by having everyone work for the government, and that way, there'd be lots of revenue generated from all the taxes paid as the others pay........
ooops, never mind...your logic fails.
I swear to God the U.S. is literally becoming a Banana Republic, with people advocating notions such as hiring and having more, rather than fewer, government workers drives economic activity or growth, rather than diminishes both.
Silly, of course. Government employees do not pay taxes. Their tax-funded wages are merely discounted. The vast majority of government jobs are just thinly-disguised welfare, providing services for which no genuine market demand exists. The real, productive economy has to pay for this make-work enterprise; the "taxes" that government employees supposedly pay are nothing but a partial refund back to the real taxpayers (on already inflated salaries/benefits anyway). You are merely rationalizing the fact that you live by the labor of others which is quite simply being stolen from them by you and other members of your particular mob.
Government employees do not receive income. They are paid out of tax receipts.
They do not pay taxes, they give back some of the taxes they were paid with.
They do not contribute to pension plans, the taxpayer does for them.
The need for a military is proportional to the ACTUAL threat to the ACTUAL US. Everything else is corporate sponsored terrorism- no, I do not support that.
The rule of law is a joke. It is perpetrated by those that write them and benefit them at the expense of 98% of the population.
No, I do not support the Constitution. It is incapable of restraining the elites that would transfer all our hard earned wealth through dollar inflation. It is incapable of restraining government from confiscating our liberty. It is incapable of restraining the production of laws that guarantee the profits of corporations at the expense of new business possibilities.
Get your hand out of my wallet and earn your own wealth you sycophantic, lazy, do nothing propagandist.
Wait, weren't you arrested at the Safeway in Arizona on Saturday?
Are you incapable of intelligent comment? You asked for responses to a set of questions. Are you surprised you received an answer?
You make a list of questions up that are designed to trigger answers as taught by MSM. However, there are still those Americans left whom choose to use their intellects and question your assumptions.
Now, care to debate ?
he cannot debate the unthinkable truth. insults are the only possible response.
You did not answer any questions. Your post was an irrational rant parroted from some anti-government website. It was not worthy of a substantive comment. Still isn't. If you care to engage in rationale debate, post rationale answers to the questions.
I think I answered most of them. They may not be "rationale" answers, but they are rational answers.They have an economic basis and are structured on Free Market principles. Obviously, you are not capable of substantive comment or understanding core economic principles.
This is what happens when you try to speak sense. The .gov workers need to be at par with the rest of the population when it comes to rules. This means reduction of benefits. When there is no money, it is the only choice. Too bad these pension plans were not sustainable in the first place, now they want us to pay the price regardless of the costs. No mas. Not gonna happen.
Do you think that is an appropriate response? He answered your question honestly and you link him to a mentally deranged gunman. Your a dick, and yes I junked you!
Let me help you by reposting the questions:
Do you think that federal and state employees pay taxes on income?
Do you think that federal and state employees contribute to their own pension plans?
Do you honestly think that the lines, if any, should be drawn between those who work in the public sector and those who work in the private sector?
Do you believe that active duty military personnel are employees of the federal government?
Do you believe that those who served on active duty, and retired under an explicit, legal retirement plan, should now be deprived of the benefits of that plan?
Do you think that veterans who are retired due to disability, including those wounded in combat, should be deprived of veteran's disability retirement pay?
Do you think state employees, such as teachers, firemen, and policemen, should, after 30 years of work for the state that was possible only because of great personal sacrifice, should now be deprived of the pension payments to which they are entitled, by law?
Do you know what is meant by the term, "rule of law"?
Do you care what is meant by the term, "rule of law"?
Do you know what a Jacobin is?
Do you know what happened in France during the Reign of Terror?
Are you familiar with the U.S. Constitution? If so, do you support that Constitution?
Maybe you should try to answer them reasonably this time. Spit out the venom first. Now, take a deep breath. Okay, ready, offer a rational argument.
That said, my hand is not, and never has been, in your wallet. I have worked since I was in 2nd grade, doing everything from mopping floors to washing nursing home bedsheets to bailing hay to being in combat to . . . my jobs have been countless and have been in both the private and public sector. I worked as hard, if not harder, in the public sector and did so for less pay than I would have made in the private sector. And yes, if I had thought that evil would triumph in the way I see it triumphing in your posts and the posts of others, I may have shit on your the last 40+ years the way you want to shit on me now. But I like to think I am above that--that I would never do that to another person. I guess we may all soon be tested.
1. No, they do not. This is a common misconception. Public spending is not productive, it is consumptive. Therefore, they have taxes withheld from tax remittances.
2. No, taxpayers contribute to pension funds on their behalf- they do not earn income.
3. Immaterial- what line and what is it's purpose. You need definition.
4. Yes.
5. No
6. No
7.Yes
8. Only common law
9. Yes
10.Yes
11.Yes
12. No, I do not support the Constitution as it has been superceded by the Central Bank.
Now, I have answered all your questions. Notice how many are yes/no. They all ignore the ramifications of your questions. You think you are proceeding down a long list of logical points to ascertain a logical conclusion, but you are mistaken. The questions are not logical as they make unproved assumptions. Their relevance is moot. If there is no money to pay for pensions or if the people are unwilling to make the money available- it matters not what a law says. As in bankruptcy law, the conditions are changed and risk is signed off and available assets are distributed.
As long as you want to call for increased taxation, you are putting your hand in my wallet. As long as you call for expenditures by government I do not agree with or to, you are putting your hand in my wallet.
Your choice of employment means nothing to me. That you worked in the public sector means you were a leach and a drag on the benefits I could have gained without you. You are the problem, an ignorant sycophant without the benefit a good education in political economy would have afforded you. I have never sought public funding and never will. I owe you nothing and I owe your pension even less.
By your logic, corporations don't pay wages and employees don't earn income (neither pays taxes either), they are merely paid on their behalf by customers. Of course that can't be true, can it? Small wonder that money laundering is so common when even some punk on a blog can warp the reality of even the simplest of transactions.
A corporation is a private entity and produces a product or service for a fee, hopefully profitable. From the purchase of these products, costs are paid- including labor.
A government employee is paid for production of goods or services from taxation. This is earnings of productive labor and enterprise. Earnings that can not now be used for additional production or consumption, but must be spent by a different entity. One that is less efficient than private enterprise- realizing an additional loss. As the taxation is additional consumption- the product is consumption as well. It never creates wealth.
Your misunderstanding of private and public spending is faulty.
It is incapable of restraining government from confiscating our liberty.
Not true, it gives WE the people the right to change anything in it.
38 States, and a CON CON, and we have a new herd in every room in 10sq miles if we wish, and we can change whatever laws we wish to change, and NO one can stop it.
Congress MUST abide by it, and the POTUS has no say,nor does the Senate.
Plus WE get to choose our delegates from each of those states.
Want to stop the insanity?,this will do it.
Do you think state employees, such as teachers, firemen, and policemen, should, after 30 years of work for the state that was possible only because of great personal sacrifice, should now be deprived of the pension payments to which they are entitled, by law?
AYFKM? Great personal sacrifice? Ever met a cop that was forced to be a cop? That's what they want to do for a living. I never met a poor one, either. Nice cars, nice houses, kids in Catholic school. The average American can't even come close to earning what the average cop makes. And, it takes 80 taxpayers to support one pension recipient. Your beloved pension plan is nothing more that another Ponzi scheme foisted on taxpayers everywhere. "Public servants" need to save for their retirement just like every other schmuck in this country does.
They do. They forego pay in the present for pay in retirement. That was the bargain they made with YOU, THE TAXPAYER. If you did not want to make the bargain, you should have elected officials who would not make that bargain. You are driving on roads, being protected by police, being served by government employees, every day. YOU elected the people who made all of that possible. YOU wanted those services. YOU committed, through your representative, your agent, to pay those people who met their obligations under that bargain. Now YOU OWE THEM what they were promised. To do otherwise is gutless. Are you gutless?
Grossly overpaid government "workers" made no bargain with ME, you statist pig!
I owe nobody anything. They can go to Hell, and you with them.
Again, another ZH poster who thinks he is a liberty loving, free enterpriser when, in fact, he would destroy the very foundation, the rule of law, of liberty and free enterprise. You really don't see that, do you?
Once again, the government SERVES the people.
The people do not serve the government. You have forgotten this.
We owe you NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING.
Public service is a public trust, and 90% of those I know in federal service are outstanding people who work hard to do what YOU, the taxpayer, has hired them to do. The fact that they expect YOU, the taxpayer, to meet his obligations to pay them what they are owed under the bargain they made with you, in no way suggests that they do not fulfill that obligation of public trust. You do, in fact, OWE THEM, OWE THEM, OWE THEM.
Public service is an opportunity by banking elites to create ever increasing amounts of debt they can collect interest on. It is an opportunity for workers to create bureaucratic empires that are rarely needed or wanted. It is an opportunity to intrude on the lives and in the wealth of honest, wealth producing people. Public service is the opportunity to pay more for a service than I could purchase it for privately and usually to benefit a contributor. Public service is an opportunity to create a self supporting voting block.
I owe you nothing.
Gutless is relying on a goverment job your entire life.
No, gutless is trying to weasel out of your obligations because you made bad choices for yourself and resent those who made good choices. Again, you are the grasshopper to the federal employee's ant.
Gutless, is never ever,ever, working in the private sector to see how it is to live off your labors, not the public dole.(this is what is making the laws for the most part).
Pensions aside, folks who lay their lives on the line, sure as hell do not do it for the pay.
You make two erroneous assumptions: one, that a person voted or gave legitimacy to a representative. Two, that said representative is capable of participating in an independent manner. Both of which undermine your argument.
Representative government is about the voters electing their representatives to represent their interests. If you failed to vote, you have absolutely NO right to bitch about what your representative does. If you did vote and don't like what he or she does, then campaign against that person, or run yourself, or contribute to the opponent.
The system, based upon the rule of law and representative government creates the rule of law. Those who have the vote need to stop whining and go out and change the leadership within the constraints of the rule of law.
None of this, by the way, undermines my arguments. You make the argument, silly grasshopper.
Actually, I have every right. You have no right if you DID vote, as you have clearly given your permission. I have not. Nor do I feel bound by it's declarations.
I see... so, under a 'representative' government, a person who doesn't vote is responsible for the actions of the government because they didn't vote against the government. Of course, if a person did vote, they are responsible too, for more obvious reasons.
Ergo... the taxpayer is responsible for anything the government does.
Sorry, I am not resposible for anything my government does. It doesn't derive its power from me, and it does whatever it damn well pleases, whether I agree with its policies or not.
Public sector 'workers' signed up to be in the employ of this glorified mafia ponzi, with its unlikely future benefit promises. Again, they did this without seeking my advice or permission.
If their employer - the government - welshes on their contract, it's not my responsibility.
Will we take food from the mouths of our children so you can go play golf? No we won't.
Gene, you disappoint me. You are made of grandma's sturdy stock yet would stick a knife in her before you would honor your taxpayer obligation to pay her pension. That's sort of sad. I would have thought all that money you made acting the clown in KISS would have paid handsomely and that you would have more than enough money today to put food in the mouths of your children. Alas, I guess you squandered it on other things, or made some bad choices along the way. As for gold, I do not play, and would never throw money away on such a meaningless pursuit. I work, save, and live.
Hey, you know how it is - old rockers die broke.
the current wave of foreclosures will look like a ripple vs. the title wave that will hit if this happens.
why?
the public pension recipients will be asked to accept a 50% haircut minimum or simply go away.
WTF did we ever do to deserve self serving self gloating self agrandizing leeches like this?
even a 10% haircut will cause a ton defaults in this over leveraged train wreck of a country.
Try: expect to retire at 55 with 100% of your final working year's salary, plus full health benefits for life...
Yes.
The working year's salary contributed only fractions to what will be paid over 20+ years to the recipient.
The public employee "saved" pennies on the dollar that he/she will receive for a long long time.
Can we allow to starve public service sector employees? I think so.
Calling the taxpayers self-serving, self-gloating, self-aggrandizing leeches is not polite.
The truth often hurts.
A Federal Court already started that one...............their may be a few TBTF's , Failing.
Please tell me that "title wave" was intentional.
Either way; may I borrow it? I will give you proper cred.
It's going to happen. It will either be in a controlled manner or a chaotic one.
Reality will set in, sooner or later. My husband is military. His promised retirement package does not factor in to my retirement planning. Nothing promised by the government does.
military pensions are paid for by DOD, not the individual states.
correct me if I'm wrong.
DOD is a part of the government.
No, you're right. I was simply pointing out another level. The federal government, unlike the states, can pretend it's not insolvent with the assistance of the Fed. However, if something like this goes through with the states, I imagine that the next step would be at the federal level.
There is no money for anyone. I think it would do well for everyone who expects a government check at some point in his life to begin adjusting to reality.
There will always be money to pay Federal pensions including those of DOD employees. Imho!
However, there is no money to pay the state level bureaucrats 6-figure pensions as is the case in California. There is no money to afford firemen pension income at the age of 55! It's all a big fantasy.
The reset happened in 2008 and we're still reeling from it, sifting through the debris and rebuilding. At first it was "business as usual" for most on the State and Federal level but now they're bound to see the same light that everyone else does.
America will be leaner and meaner. That's a good thing!
If there is no money to pay for firemens' pensions at 55, there is no money to pay for military retirements at 38.
Now, I know that the DoD is slowly chipping away at retirement benefits. They have begun offering payouts in advance in exchange for a decrease of future benefits. I know that in the Navy, it's no longer "Chief for life." There are now review boards and if you're not pulling your weight, then you are out hatch, shipmate. Also, they continue to revise eligibility for retirement. You used to be able to retire as an E-5, now it's E-6. E-7 may be around the corner, but that would be a hard pill for many to swallow.
I think the next step will be to significantly alter benefits offered to new recruits. In this economy, they are not hurting for new people. I saw that the Army and Marines will be reducting active troop levels soon. People will be willing to serve for the steady paycheck and will not be as concerned with retirement packages.
"Up, or out" has always been the rule of officers. Seems fair.
The retirement will stay at 20 years, or they will fail to meet quota. Infantry soldiers are honestly worn out after 20 years. Their joints are toast.
I live in a community with a voluntary fire department.
Our houses burn just like the houses in cities where firemen work 4 days on / 4 days off.
During the 4 days on the job, they clean the fire trucks.
There is a HUGE difference between active duty military and policemen or firemen.
A retiring fireman at 55 is at prime and will take on many more jobs plus collect on his pension. Heck, they work in construction or other trade during their 4 days off anyway while they're sucking the public teet.
Let's talk about city engineers that are a dime a dozen and most of them completely irrelevant.