he's having a bad day

Easy in my opinion. You do what the private sector did. WShen those contracts come up, you modify them and say "on such-and-such a date, contributions to your pension will cease. You will be vested in any contributions already made to your pension, and therefore you have earned a portion of the future benefit. Henceforth, future contributions will be made to a 401(k), and like everyone else, you need to live on whatever you can accumulate"

Try suggesting that to a teacher or a cop (or better yet, to a union rep), and watch the reaction you get. No one will say "hey, I recognize the economic realities of today, so let's discuss this". What they'll say is that, for example, you don't care about kids getting quality education, or that you are anti-cop. There is no talking to these people, not till states file bankruptcy.

Let's not forget how JD was so appalled that everyone was jumping on the Fort Hood shooter and calling the "radical Islamic terrorist" what he was.

JD clearly hates women who are taller then himself.:rotf2:

Everyone back in their respective corners :fury:

Have a :gh:

And show your :love:

How would we frame and honest, non-insulting discussion? Not afraid of hurting one's feelings, but more to have a respectful dialogue on a subject?

Jim,

Easy, yes. Logical, maybe not. I applaud your intent and agree that we need to change. However, the agreement goes beyond a labor contract. By that I mean the agreement pertains to a longer timeframe (typicaly twenty years or so for Fire and Police since I can't speak about teachers). I would be interested to see some concrete examples of how the industry did this years ago (I confess that I am not familiar with how they calculated that). As you can see I'm not ashamed to admit that I do not have knowledge of certain aspects--much like I am sure you have no knowledge of certain aspects of the agreements made regarding longevity in the pension plans. Together, we can learn and find equitable solutions. These are tough decisions and the individuals that are in those positions are putting their lives on the line in return for the agreement. It may not be easy to get the same caliber of person to fill those positions in the future (...and then again, it may be easier given the transient nature of this new generation). I personally think a cut off date where anyone after the date is given a certain amount into their 401K and those before continue with the plan may be the way to go. However, I'm still learning all the sides of the issue.

It's impossible. Even topics that have no partisan basis are almost immediately dragged through the sewers of political polarity. I'm quite surprised that one about Unions has made it this long.

kinda like The VIEW..right? the "IGNORE" feature here is like when the two dingbats...OOPS..I mean... ESTEEMED LIBERAL THINKERS...acted indignant and strutted off stage...

the "sewers of political polarity"...that's funny...

I do not think it is as easy as that for the following reason: Isn't the main problem with the pension systems for the states is that they have been underfunded. Are you suggesting that the pension plans would lose any amounts that have not been funded yet. If so, I think that would be difficult from a political and legal stand point. It would be a hard argument to make that people should take dramatic cuts to their benefits accrued because prior governments ignored their pension obligations. As far as turning them into 401(k) plans I think it results in just another large subsidy to the financial sector. Maybe they can be self directed but to be honest I really do not know how much flexibility there is.

you guys are in the wrong thread...the pension thread is over there....

we are discussing the "sewers of political polarity"

weird how topics in the Political Threads always descend into partisan political discussions...one of life's mysteries I suppose...

The private sector has made these changes in many different ways. Most companies either cut the pension all together or grandfather it so that any new employee hired after X date is left out. Other private companies, like my wife's actually grandfather vested employees with a pension but after you make over a certain salary, the higher wage earners pay into the pension fund from their salary to subsidize the whole plan (similar to taxing the "rich" to give to the poor) Let’s see a union or public employee make that concession.

As for caliber of people.......the private sector has not had a problem hiring people when they need to and they are not loosing high caliber people due to not offering a pension. I’d be willing to bet that if pensions were rolled into a 401K's we would not see police and teachers fleeing from their jobs. I also think people that are years from retirement (like me) assume that a pension will not be there for them in 30-40 years so it would not make an impact on finding “high caliber” people.

What I would suggest is, teachers have earned whatever portion of their pension that they have paid into. Then, after som edate, they no longer "earn" more of their pension, but fund into a 401(k). That's what the private sector did. As for subsidizng the private sector...to me, that's a better alternative than doubling property taxes, which is what you'd have to do to adequately fund those insane pensions.

In the private sector, if the pension plan is underfunded or not fully funded and the company goes under, you loose your pension. (Enron and Polaroid just to name a few). Believe me, I wish it was affordable for everyone to have a pension but in the end, a pension is a "major perk" and it does not seem to be sustainable from a government level. If the yearly salaries were not so high, I could see it being more affordable but you can’t have it both ways. Some public employees are making a hell of a lot of many especially compared to 20 years ago and they still expect a pension which is rated off of that high salary. It just isn't sustainable in this world. The government isn't selling something to make a large profit like a private company and it just isn’t sustainable.

Piscator,

There is a federal agency set up to absorb those funds that failed...the Pension Benefit Guarantee Bureau (we joke that PBGB closely sounds like heebee jeebees!). That's where United pilots went when their fund went belly up along with lots of others. What I find amazing is that railroad retirement, the only federally mandated retirement fund, is self-sufficient at this point. However, their members pay almost 3.5 times what we pay into social security.

When it comes to attracting good people I think the discussion has to be broken into the respective groups, i.e. firefighter, teachers, police, and other public servant. I do think it would be difficult to keep qualified firefighters if they did not have the pensions that they have. However, they are also taking, for the most part, big concessions during the econic downturn (at least here where I live) and no I am not a firefighter. In my area teachers and police have refused concessions. I find that to be the real hard pill to swallow and a major reason why I am less inclined to work with them. I don't dislike unions (I actually pay my dues and I am a conservative)...I dislike unions that bring nothing to the table and expect everything. We all need to take cuts. However, figuring out what cuts to take is the big issue. I'd like to see the first Congressman willing to not take the pension or health benefits provided after only 8 years in office (try getting that in a contract!!).

I think Ron Paul has refused the pension.

Sorry for getting off topic in this thread but it's better than where this thing was going earlier...........

Chesapeake Bill: I agree with you for the most part. But I still think you will get qualified firefighters, teachers, & police without giving a pension (I could be wrong). Up here in Mass we have some very very highly paid police and fire (many of my very close friends are in the profession so I know) Now they work for a (small) city that pays them well so I'm sure they are on the higher end for the state as a whole but you would still not believe what they get paid. Granted, they put their life on the line and you can't take that away from them, but they will even admit (to me atleast) how good they really have it when it comes to compensation (their Union would NEVER say that). The guys on the fire all have sencond businesses on the side as well as much of their work is overnight so they get to sleep on slow nights. Again, they aren't at home in their own bed and you have to give them credit for that (they do say it is nice to be able to sleepo on the job though).

When did the PBGB get started? (shows you how much I don't know). I was always under the impression that the Enron and Polaroid folks literally lost everything. I had a friend who's Dad worked for Polaroid for years and when they went under, he lost his whole pension (maybe it was before PBGB?)

Jim in CT: I take your point that you draw a line in the sand and go forward but I think you are buying a major lawsuit that the state may well lose if it does not pay the money it was required to do so before the cut off date.
Piscator: In the private example there is no more money left at the company to pay into the pensions. With a state that has assets and the power to tax that is not the case which again that leads to a lawsuit and would really hurt the state in the bond market.

The current issue of the Economist has a great article on public sector employees and the issues facing both the US and the developed European countries. Well worth reading if you have the time.

[QUOTE=mosholu;826182]
Piscator: In the private example there is no more money left at the company to pay into the pensions. With a state that has assets and the power to tax that is not the case which again that leads to a lawsuit and would really hurt the state in the bond market. QUOTE]

The private sector is in business to make as much money and profit as they can. If they can’t even afford pensions then why should the Government (who is not in the business to make money or profit) be expected to provide that to their employees? I'm not saying current employees shouldn't be entitled to them to some degree but it should be grandfathered and ended to new hires. Some (not all) of the state salaries are through the roof and there are pensions associated with those. As these salaries continue to rise, so doesn’t the pensions and it isn’t sustainable. The private sector pretty much ended it and the public sector needs to take a close look at it too (let's face it, the private sector is a hell of a lot smarter than the Government).
Check this link out, it list of salaries for Mass employees. Some of the State Troopers are making north of $150K and some Lieutenant’s well over $180K a year. Those pensions are a huge hit to tax payers money and can't be sustained. The only thing they can do is continue to raise taxes to pay for it. When will it end?

Your tax dollars at work: 2009 State Employee Payroll - Boston Herald.com

Piscator,

I like your thoughts and appreciate your discussion. If we don't have these tough talks we will never find the answer. I was wrong. It is Corporation, not Bureau as I previosuly mentioned (Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)). Very interesting reading on their site. The beneficiaries rarely get much of their benefits back as a per dollar ratio but at least they get something. I'm afraid that is where a lot of these benefit funds will be if we don't so something.

Chesapeake Bill, Same here! I appreciate your discussion as well. That's what I like about this site.

Spoken like the MARVELOUS free thinker you are....

there are double rainbows hidden within those words

Blame has to fall on the Parents, the school officials and others whose job it was to see that this troubled kid had serious issues
that everyone turned a blind eye to and did nothing but ignore him.

MSNBC Analyst on Shooting: Media Has ‘Behaved Pretty Well,’ but not Conservatives

January 11, 2011 at 8:00am by Jonathon M. Seidl
On Tuesday morning’s “Morning Joe,“ MSNBC political analyst Mark Halperin summarized the recent response to the Arizona tragedy with the audacious claim that politicians and the media ”behaved pretty well.” But with one caveat: the “good behavior” can’t be extended to conservative commentators.

“I just want to single out one thing,” Halperin said. “I don’t want to over-generalize but I think the media and the politicians have behaved pretty well so far. The thing I’m most concerned about now is the anger on the right-wing commenatariat: on Fox, and George Will, and other conservatives are, in some cases justifiably upset at liberals. But they’re turning this right now, in the last 24 hours, back into the standard operating procedure of all of this is war and fodder for content, rather than trying to bring the country together.”

That caused host Joe Scarborough to do a double take: “Wait a second, Mark. I think they would say that you have that backwards. That a shooting was turned into fodder to attack conservatives.”

Halperin reached into the biblical analogy bag to respond. Conservatives, he said, just should have turned the other cheek: “They’re right. But rather than seizing on it and turning the other cheek, they are back at their war stations. And that’s not going to help us.”

this is war Mr. Halperin, your side launched the SCUD missiles and now you hide behind skirts and the Bible?....We understand that people like you are no different than the islamofacists who play by no moral or ethical rules and demand that your victims adhere to stringent guidelines as you continue to stoop to every form of dispicable attack....

NY TIMES EDITORS
It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is not just misguided, but the enemy of the people.

there are two sides angry at government...those that are angry about what the government is doing to them and those that are angry about what the government isn't doing for them, clearly the Journalists and Editors at the paper of shame have decided that the rhetoric is only a problem from one side and apparently of these people have chosen to ingnore the evidence from people that say they knew this guy and have described him as pothead, left wing, anti-religeon and who know's what the shrine with the skull in his yard was all about but there isn't a single link to anything teaparty, conservative, rightwing, talk radio, Palin etc...still they persist and make it very clear that there is absolutely no debate with theses people...no shame, no consience, no integrity and no principles....

Obama fires up Democrats: 'I want you to argue with them and get in their face'THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Thursday, September 18th 2008, 9:50 AM

.........................

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night.

I don't want to blame either side.
He was a mentally derranged person. In the state with close to the most lineient gun laws in the country, he was able to buy a semi-automatic handgun with extended magazines? That is an underlying issue.

Craig brings up a good point; he lived at home, WTF were his parents doing???

Great post. Crazy is crazy, these people are going to be set off by something that makes no sense to us.

I did watch the coverage again last night, and some folks at MSNBC and the New York Times are actually accusing Sarah Palin of being an accessory to mass murder. It's putrid, it's just an attempt by the left (not all on the left, but too many) to silence those with whom they disagree.

RIROCKHOUND makes a good point. There are no rational reason I cna think of, why a citizen should be able to buy extended magazines for handguns.

RIROCKHOUND makes a good point. There are no rational reason I cna think of, why a citizen should be able to buy extended magazines for handguns.[/QUOTE]

and predictably, many are saying..ahhh, forget about those allegations that we made over the weekend...what we need to do is focus on gun control now and the fairness doctorine....Jim, Bryan....if we ban "extended magazines" would this have been prevented? I don't own a gun, my little brother shot himself in the head with a gun, I don't see why anyone needs an extended magazine or whatever they are but to try to shift this to a gun control debate is absurd and more an attempt to further a political issue through a massacre by a nut.....the guy was a nut, if he couldn't get a gun legally he would and could get one illegally or build a bomb or just drive his car through the crowd....he was obvoiusly going to hurt someone and apparenlty a lot of people saw the signs and said nothing...which seems to be the case in many of these occurances....

Good question. His parents were probably walking on eggshells hoping nothing would ever happen.

What is the fix for those suffering from a mental illness? Is there a fix? Is fix the wrong word?

He was an adult so there was not much his parents could legally do without his consent.

I'm disappointed yet another tragedy has been politicized.

and predictably, many are saying..ahhh, forget about those allegations that we made over the weekend...what we need to do is focus on gun control now and the fairness doctorine....Jim, Bryan....if we ban "extended magazines" would this have been prevented? I don't own a gun, my little brother shot himself in the head with a gun, I don't see why anyone needs an extended magazine or whatever they are but to try to shift this to a gun control debate is absurd and more an attempt to further a political issue through a massacre by a nut.....the guy was a nut, if he couldn't get a gun legally he would and could get one illegally or build a bomb or just drive his car through the crowd....he was obvoiusly going to hurt someone and apparenlty a lot of people saw the signs and said nothing...which seems to be the case in many of these occurances....[/QUOTE]

Scott, I do believe there is too much access to crazy weaponry. This guy's rampage ended when he was tackled as he stopped to reload. To me, it's very possible that if his magazine had 12 rounds instead of the extended capacity (30 rounds I think?), he would have fired fewer bullets before he was subdued.

Stricter gun control won't eliminate gun crime entirely, obviously. But I'm sure it would reduce gun deaths. Not everyone can build a bomb, or get their hands on one.

Great question John R. There are a lot of unbalanced folks out there, but very few go this far. I think these occasional tragedies will remain a sad fact of life for the forseeable future. With more diligent oversight by parents and teachers, maybe we can avoid some of these tragedies, but they will never be eliminated.

and predictably, many are saying..ahhh, forget about those allegations that we made over the weekend...what we need to do is focus on gun control now and the fairness doctorine....Jim, Bryan....if we ban "extended magazines" would this have been prevented? I don't own a gun, my little brother shot himself in the head with a gun, I don't see why anyone needs an extended magazine or whatever they are but to try to shift this to a gun control debate is absurd and more an attempt to further a political issue through a massacre by a nut.....the guy was a nut, if he couldn't get a gun legally he would and could get one illegally or build a bomb or just drive his car through the crowd....he was obvoiusly going to hurt someone and apparenlty a lot of people saw the signs and said nothing...which seems to be the case in many of these occurances....[/QUOTE]

Scott you are right in saying there is no way to really effectively limit what a committed crazy person will do to get where he wants to be. But in all political issues things work on a stimulus/response basis. So now that this tragedy has occurred is it wrong to look at whether extended magazines have any place being freely available in our society. While we may not stop these nuts should we do nothing to make it harder? I do not know that much about guns but I have a hard time thinking of a legitimate reason why someone would need a 33 shot clip in a pistol. There should at least be a debate about it at an appropriate time.

crazy thread Im staying out of.

and lets not forget -
"But they're going to be paying attention to this election, and if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, "We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us ."If they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's gonna be harder. And that's why I think it is so important that people focus on voting on November 2.

direct quote from our President.
Who is inciting violence?