Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 01-15-2011, 01:11 PM   #61
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
Let me make it simple for you scott... If I can make 110000+ in biotech and teaching pays 30,000, I can't justify teaching. I think my salary is in line with what it should be. My district the union also agreed to a pay freeze. It will cost me 3,000 per year for the rest of my career. We pay a fair percent of our benefits. I don't know too many teachers asking for more more more.

A pay freeze, without addressing thye benefits, is meaningless.

And if you give up a raise for one year, how does that cost you $3,000 every year for the rest of you career? How big was the raise that you gave up?
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-15-2011, 01:25 PM   #62
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
well pal, I am not sure I would have a problem with 401k and social security so count me out of that discussion. I am sorry you feel so burdened. If it is so upsetting, you might look at ways to reduce your stress, like fishing Luckily for me, I am rich enough to by myself a 30' center console and a pile of offshore gear to fish for tuna, so I don't get stressed (in my dreams). Well, someday may I do feel bad that this gets so many people worked up. I have a cousin in PA who got married, moved to a new house they built in a different town, had a couple kids and all the husband does is complain about property taxes. Funny considering his family is one of the driving forces behind the need for higher property taxes. He makes a very good salary selling pharmaceuticals, which directly affects health care plan costs too. It's gotta be the shoes.

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 01-15-2011, 01:33 PM   #63
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
well pal, I am not sure I would have a problem with 401k and social security so count me out of that discussion. I am sorry you feel so burdened. If it is so upsetting, you might look at ways to reduce your stress, like fishing Luckily for me, I am rich enough to by myself a 30' center console and a pile of offshore gear to fish for tuna, so I don't get stressed (in my dreams). Well, someday may I do feel bad that this gets so many people worked up. I have a cousin in PA who got married, moved to a new house they built in a different town, had a couple kids and all the husband does is complain about property taxes. Funny considering his family is one of the driving forces behind the need for higher property taxes. He makes a very good salary selling pharmaceuticals, which directly affects health care plan costs too. It's gotta be the shoes.
The "pal" reference was because I went to great lengths to answer your questions directly. You still won't even try to answe mine. That really, really bothers me.

I tried Zimmy, I gave you a direct answer to the questions you asked. Your answer to mine was "I'm sorry you're so mad".

That's what teachers always, always do. They come up with phrases that are designed to alter the discussion. Each of the last 2 contract discussions, when I brought up 401(k)s, I was accused of not caring about kids' education. Right.

If ordinary dads out there making $50k a year have to get a second job to pay their property taxes, or if ordinary dads have to sell their houses because they can't afford the property taxes, are the kids of that dad better off because their teachers still have pensions? I don't see how.

And we're all still waiting to see how giving up a raise, costs you $3k a year for perpetuity.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-15-2011, 01:46 PM   #64
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
Let me make it simple for you scott... If I can make 110000+ in biotech and teaching pays 30,000, I can't justify teaching. I think my salary is in line with what it should be. My district the union also agreed to a pay freeze. It will cost me 3,000 per year for the rest of my career. We pay a fair percent of our benefits. I don't know too many teachers asking for more more more.
186 days
scottw is offline  
Old 01-15-2011, 01:59 PM   #65
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
I answered your question. i wouldn't mind getting social security and a 401k. What else do you want me to answer? As far as the raise, I don't know what the actual value was, but I am not at the max step, so I was in line to get a step increase along with a cost of living increase. At the point i am at it was a pretty big difference. The step freeze means I am at the 10th step, when I would have gone to 11th, and the cost of living increase was frozen. I will always be one step lower than I would have been, so over my career it adds up. Also had an increase in benefits contributions and increase in insurance co-pay.
i was sincere about being sorry you are so mad. maybe in your town things have been different, but I think our union was pretty reasonable.

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 01-15-2011, 02:01 PM   #66
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
186 days
yes, that is 75% of a typical schedule. 30000, isn't 75% of 110000

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 01-15-2011, 02:04 PM   #67
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
I answered your question. i wouldn't mind getting social security and a 401k. What else do you want me to answer? As far as the raise, I don't know what the actual value was, but I am not at the max step, so I was in line to get a step increase along with a cost of living increase. At the point i am at it was a pretty big difference. The step freeze means I am at the 10th step, when I would have gone to 11th, and the cost of living increase was frozen. I will always be one step lower than I would have been, so over my career it adds up. Also had an increase in benefits contributions and increase in insurance co-pay.
i was sincere about being sorry you are so mad. maybe in your town things have been different, but I think our union was pretty reasonable.
OK, you did answer my question, thanks. Sincerely. The vast majority of your bretheren are not nearly as reasonable, and your unions use negotiating tactics that would make the Gambino family proud.

I assure you that forgoing a raise for a couple of years isn't costing you $3000 every year. It might cost you that mush in the year you gave up tha raise, but not in perpetuity.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-15-2011, 02:07 PM   #68
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
maybe in your town things have been different, but I think our union was pretty reasonable.

Zimmy, if my town's union was the only one being demanding, the state of CT wouldn't be in the gaping whole it's in. The profession is compensated at a level that's nowhere near sustainable.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-15-2011, 06:27 PM   #69
TheSpecialist
Hardcore Equipment Tester
iTrader: (0)
 
TheSpecialist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Abington, MA
Posts: 6,234
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Bill, yuo said this...

"He thinks you should get a decent wage but no benefits so you only have to eat cat food after you retire "

I guess you can't read very well, because that's not even CLOSE to anything I said. I think teachers should have benefits that resemble what's available to the public which they claim to serve. Namely, 401(k)'s instead of pensions. If I ask teachers to live with the same benefits that those who pay their salaries (taxpayers) have to live on, why is that unreasonable? Can you plkease answer that, instead of putting extremist words in my mouth?
I work for a corporation, I have both a pension, and a 401k, so it is still attainable to people not employed by the government... BTW Management also had same until their pensions were frozen a few years ago.

Last edited by TheSpecialist; 01-15-2011 at 06:37 PM..

Bent Rods and Screaming Reels!

Spot NAZI
TheSpecialist is offline  
Old 01-15-2011, 07:37 PM   #70
Swimmer
Retired Surfer
iTrader: (0)
 
Swimmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sunset Grill
Posts: 9,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
OK, you did answer my question, thanks. Sincerely. The vast majority of your bretheren are not nearly as reasonable, and your unions use negotiating tactics that would make the Gambino family proud.

I assure you that forgoing a raise for a couple of years isn't costing you $3000 every year. It might cost you that mush in the year you gave up tha raise, but not in perpetuity.

Jim I don't know where the Ct. unions get their strength to strong arm elected officials into giving them these huge contracts, but I do know for the last five to ten years the power has swung around the other wy in Massachusetts, where unions that represent every facet of public employee have lost tremendous amounts of bargaining power.

In thirty seven years of public service, never bargaining for a contract, but being the recipient of what was bargained, both good and bad, I never ever saw any officers in my union strong arm anyone, and thats in any form. Now if what your saying that officers new certain things about certain elected officials and they used that, well you should take that info to the nearest F.B.I. office.

And why is it that you base everything on your being an actuary. Everyone here is familiar with unfunded liabilty, in all its forms. My wife has her graduate degree in math and she wouldn't go for any interviews to do actuarial work, because the money wasn't there.

I retired from public service last July. I don't make enough to survive on either. SO I WENT OUT AND GOT A SECOND JOB TO MAKE ENDS MEET.

You don't need to adjust the retirement system in regard to the 44 yr. old retiring and taking another job as a detective. The residents there just need to enact legislation making that illegal, they probaly wont though. Who wouldn't hire a retired, qualified person, who probably serve with distinction in one town, in another town, if he was healthy and had good references.

It is true, at least from my perspective, the "pay peanuts, get monkeys" analogy. I'll say this to back that up. When the men who served in WW2 and Korea came home there were no jobs. The towns gave them the first opening on various town departments as a way of thanking them for their service. Those men, were for the most part uneducated (high aschool), some were illiterate, I know this personally, but they had one thing going for them, and that is they believe in the order of things. Thats because of where they were four the last four or five years. These men, from my perspective were thugs at best. And the town didn't really care. They only cared that they didn't see anything, and the town didn't get sued. Well after a while towns did get sued. Because these guys did what they did best any way they could physically. The only people who saw the end result of this physical activity were the parents and loved ones when the beaten person came home. Thats why rules changed, and had to change, and that is why the Quinn bill in Massachusetts was first introduced in Massachusetts in regard to police officers. Even you will admit that a more highly educated individual is one whose skills and critical thinking proceeses better prepares the officer for the street. Now to the point. Educated officers received more compentsation than uneducated officers. Most officers now have some college. Some officers have several college degrees. In private business you dont have to ask for more money for degree work. You automatically recive it. In public service we have to beg for it. But I am digressing.................Educated officer dont place themselves or the municpalities in the postion to have to defend themselves from civil rights actions that cost the towns they work for and the insurance company that cover the towns huge sums of money. In Massachusetts, brutality compalints were so common they stopped reporting them 15 or 20 years ago. Now they report them because they make news because they rarely happen. So, if you pay peanuts you get monkeys, which translates to hired thugs, who can't be controlled, and act out worse in some ways than the perps on the streets do. But if you pay a decent wage to officers or other emplyees the benefits received back from the employees most often cant be seen. I can tell you personally I ended up in federal court three times, and its not pleasant. I was a witness all three times, never a defendent. But I can't tell you the defendents are just as I described above. Uneducated, uncaring, willing to fight at the drop of a hat, because the people they were dealing with they looked upon them as someone trying to take something from them. That doesn't happen anymore.

Oh, I have my own 401K also.

Last edited by Swimmer; 01-15-2011 at 08:01 PM..

Swimmer a.k.a. YO YO MA
Serial Mailbox Killer/Seal Fisherman
Swimmer is offline  
Old 01-15-2011, 07:37 PM   #71
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpecialist View Post
I work for a corporation, I have both a pension, and a 401k, so it is still attainable to people not employed by the government... BTW Management also had same until their pensions were frozen a few years ago.
Less than 1 in 5 non-unionized employees still get a pension.

And in the private sector, that's fine, because your customers can freely choose whether or not they are willing to have that cost passed onto them. You don't get to seize my house if I don't want to absorb that cost.

Public unionized employees get to do just that.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-16-2011, 08:42 AM   #72
Fly Rod
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Fly Rod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Gloucester Massachusetts
Posts: 2,678
I know how all you guys feel out there feeling that you have been cheated and paying more taxes and all.

Here I am on social security and my cost of living has been cut for the next two years because of your president. We were suppose to get a 5.8% pay raise, that is a little more then 500 bucks per year, "GONE."

And your ranting over and over about something meaningless that you are never going to solve. I'm surprised that some of you do not have sore finger tips from your long responses.

RANT! RANT! RANT!
Fly Rod is offline  
Old 01-18-2011, 06:12 AM   #73
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
JANUARY 15, 2011

Detroit and Decay

The city may abandon half its schools to pay union benefits
Detroit was once America's fourth largest city, though today large sections of its inner core are abandoned to the elements, and monuments like Michigan Central Station are returning to dust. Another emblem of civic decline is a plan to desert nearly half of Detroit's public schools so that it can afford to fulfill its teachers union contract.

The school district is facing a $327 million deficit and has already closed 59 schools over the last two years to avoid paying maintenance, utility and operating costs

Under the emergency plan, consolidated high-school class sizes would increase to 62 by 2014, “consistent with what students would expect in large university settings.” Yet under the terms of the Detroit Federation of Teachers contract, the district must pay bonuses for class enrollment over 35, thus imposing some $11.1 million in new costs through 2014.

“Additional savings of approximately $12.4 million can be achieved from school closures if the District simply abandons the closed buildings,” the proposal explains, purging costs like boarding up buildings, storage and security patrols.

Steven Wasko, a spokesman for Mr. Bobb, said that urban property sales have been difficult, in part because until recently the state board of education banned transactions with “competing educational institutions” like charter schools. Once buildings are deserted, even if the doors and windows are welded shut with protective metal covers, scavengers break in and dismantle them for copper wire, pipes and so on.

they deserve a bailout
scottw is offline  
Old 01-18-2011, 07:44 AM   #74
likwid
lobster = striper bait
iTrader: (0)
 
likwid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Popes Island Performing Arts Center
Posts: 5,871
Send a message via AIM to likwid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
If ordinary dads out there making $50k a year have to get a second job to pay their property taxes, or if ordinary dads have to sell their houses because they can't afford the property taxes, are the kids of that dad better off because their teachers still have pensions? I don't see how.
There's a phrase for 'ordinary dads' like that.

Its called living beyond their means.

Ski Quicks Hole
likwid is offline  
Old 01-18-2011, 09:01 AM   #75
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
I think I get it...a teacher....I'm sorry...a "highly paid professional educator(gym teacher)" working 186 days a year(how many days do you actually work when you use up all of your sick and personal days?) should not have to get a part-time job to be able to do what they love in the form of employment in a particular town....but a town resident who probably works more than 186 days a year is living "beyond their means" if they find themselves needing a part-time job to pay the taxes to pay the highly paid professional educator working 186 days a year while enjoying health benefits not found in the private sector and a guaranteed income after retirement that is in no way based on their contibutions through their employment regardless of whether or not the money exists to pay them.......sounds to me like the teachers and others are living beyond the public's means....
did anyone see Gov Christie's stats about NJ education and compensation?
before you assume I hate teachers...I have a lifetime of experience with teachers as both of my parents were teachers, dad was a science teacher(with his masters) and my wife is currently a teacher...

she was substituting a couple of years ago and it was quite funny that the sub notification system that she was a part of would call the house to request subs...it would be somewhat quiet through the week but every Friday the phone would ring off of the hook and very often the Monday after a vacation was quite busy...

Last edited by scottw; 01-18-2011 at 09:13 AM..
scottw is offline  
Old 01-18-2011, 09:15 AM   #76
likwid
lobster = striper bait
iTrader: (0)
 
likwid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Popes Island Performing Arts Center
Posts: 5,871
Send a message via AIM to likwid
If you cannot afford your living expenses.
You're living beyond your means.

Stop blaming everyone else.

Ski Quicks Hole
likwid is offline  
Old 01-18-2011, 09:35 AM   #77
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by likwid View Post
If you cannot afford your living expenses.
You're living beyond your means.

Stop blaming everyone else.
that would be a great argument the next time they want to extend unemployment and borrow even more money to do so
scottw is offline  
Old 01-18-2011, 09:48 AM   #78
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by likwid View Post
If you cannot afford your living expenses.
You're living beyond your means.

Stop blaming everyone else.
Likwid, if property taxes double in 6 years because teachers refuse to accept the economic realities that face the rest of us, then that guy making $50k isn't necessarily living beyond his means. he just had no way of knowing that his teachers are completely unwilling to live on the tax revenue that he can provide.

It's the unions that won't live within the means that the public can reasonably provide.

I don't know of a business that isn't cutting exoenses. That being said, it's extremely rare for a town budget to decrease from year to year, it almost never happens.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-18-2011, 09:53 AM   #79
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
I think I get it...a teacher....I'm sorry...a "highly paid professional educator(gym teacher)" working 186 days a year(how many days do you actually work when you use up all of your sick and personal days?) should not have to get a part-time job to be able to do what they love in the form of employment in a particular town....but a town resident who probably works more than 186 days a year is living "beyond their means" if they find themselves needing a part-time job to pay the taxes to pay the highly paid professional educator working 186 days a year while enjoying health benefits not found in the private sector and a guaranteed income after retirement that is in no way based on their contibutions through their employment regardless of whether or not the money exists to pay them.......sounds to me like the teachers and others are living beyond the public's means....
did anyone see Gov Christie's stats about NJ education and compensation?
before you assume I hate teachers...I have a lifetime of experience with teachers as both of my parents were teachers, dad was a science teacher(with his masters) and my wife is currently a teacher...

she was substituting a couple of years ago and it was quite funny that the sub notification system that she was a part of would call the house to request subs...it would be somewhat quiet through the week but every Friday the phone would ring off of the hook and very often the Monday after a vacation was quite busy...
Great post, you nailed it!

When public servants (which includes everyone whose salary is funded through taxes) rank way above the median in terms of average income, with insane benefits on top of that, you have a bubble.

Here in CT, our tax rates are about the highest in the nation, and so our our incomes. That means that there is a TON of tax revenue. On top of that, teh state gets hundreds of millions from the casinos every year.

Yet with all that revebue, we are still on the verge of bankruptcy, and by far the biggest expense item is unionized benefits.

So who lived beyond their means? Those public unions are like a 25 yera old NBA star who makes $20 mill a year but goes bankrupt. The problem AIN'T a lack of revenue, it's a lack of common sense in spending habits.

You cannot look at the facts rationally, and come to a different conclusion. Only those with a political axe to grind could possibly disagree.

And I respect teachers as well. But I do not accept the premise that the financial security of teachers is more important to society, than the financial security of those who work in the private sector.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-18-2011, 11:00 AM   #80
likwid
lobster = striper bait
iTrader: (0)
 
likwid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Popes Island Performing Arts Center
Posts: 5,871
Send a message via AIM to likwid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Likwid, if property taxes double in 6 years because teachers refuse to accept the economic realities that face the rest of us, then that guy making $50k isn't necessarily living beyond his means. he just had no way of knowing that his teachers are completely unwilling to live on the tax revenue that he can provide.

It's the unions that won't live within the means that the public can reasonably provide.

I don't know of a business that isn't cutting exoenses. That being said, it's extremely rare for a town budget to decrease from year to year, it almost never happens.
Property taxes going up has been well discussed in the grumpy old farts forum, I believe you contributed to that discussion?

We'll say joe bob's property taxes were 1500, and in 6 years went up to 3000.
If he can't afford that, there's something wrong with him. Not the town.

I'm amazed at the number of people so quick to blame their financial woes on everyone but themselves.
Why hasn't joe bob looked for a better job?
Why hasn't joe bob bettered himself (whether it be via schooling or some other means) in that 6 years to either get paid more or find a better job?

Ski Quicks Hole
likwid is offline  
Old 01-18-2011, 11:20 AM   #81
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by likwid View Post

I'm amazed at the number of people so quick to blame their financial woes on everyone but themselves.
Why hasn't joe bob looked for a better job?
Why hasn't joe bob bettered himself (whether it be via schooling or some other means) in that 6 years to either get paid more or find a better job?
that would be a great argument the next time they want to extend unemployment and borrow even more money to do so


maybe joe bob recognizes that he is working much harder to fund a bloated, inefficient, bankrupt behemoth at the local, state and federal level and is also aware that many of those that he is funding are working much less, with embarassing results and getting far more in terms of pay and benefits than he or they could ever get in the real world....
scottw is offline  
Old 01-18-2011, 11:23 AM   #82
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by likwid View Post
Property taxes going up has been well discussed in the grumpy old farts forum, I believe you contributed to that discussion?

We'll say joe bob's property taxes were 1500, and in 6 years went up to 3000.
If he can't afford that, there's something wrong with him. Not the town.

I'm amazed at the number of people so quick to blame their financial woes on everyone but themselves.
Why hasn't joe bob looked for a better job?
Why hasn't joe bob bettered himself (whether it be via schooling or some other means) in that 6 years to either get paid more or find a better job?
"We'll say joe bob's property taxes were 1500, and in 6 years went up to 3000.
If he can't afford that, there's something wrong with him. Not the town."

Likwid, if Joebob isn't as fortunate as me, he might work for a company that is freezing raises. On top of that, everyone's medical insurance costs more. So if Joebob is forced to live with less, why do unionized employees always, always get more.

As I said likwid, I am fortunate enough to be able to pay whatever they want to tax me, my kids are still fine. But please re-read the question at the title of this thread. If teachers, cops, etc switched to 401(k)'s, property taxes could be reduced significantly. Instead of calling me a crybaby, how about answering the first question I asked...why can't teachers and cops live with 401(k)'s like the rest of us? What is the reason? Anyone?

In my town, the first education proposed budget for this year called for a 4% increase in spending over last year, and the teachers union is talking about all the sacrifices they made to keep the increase at 4% (still keeping their pensions, naturally).

The amount teachers receive ought to be proportional to the amount that the public has available to give them. And collectively, we don't have 4% more than last year, we have less. But their budgets never, ever, ever decrease.

Finally likwid, how come you never address my repeated point about current debt levels. If what we pay these parasites isn't excessive, why are so many municipalities in so much debt, that their bond ratings are being downgraded? If CT takes in enormous tax ravenue, plus gazillions from the casinos, and we still have the highest debt (per citizen) in the country, doesn't that necessarily mean we spent recklessly?

You like to make fun of Joebob, Likwid. But he knows something that you (and certainly teachers unions) have not figured out yet...whatever you have, you need to spend less.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-18-2011, 12:10 PM   #83
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
States Warned of $2 Trillion Pensions Shortfall
Published: Tuesday, 18 Jan 2011 | 4:51 AM ET Text Size By: Nicole Bullock, Financial Times
Twitter LinkedInMore Share
US public pensions face a shortfall of $2,500 billion that will force state and local governments to sell assets and make deep cuts to services, according to the former chairman of New Jersey’s pension fund.

News Headlines

hey, didn't these unions spend all of their pension money getting democrats elected?

Campaign's Big Spender
Public-Employees Union Now Leads All Groups in Independent Election Outlays.

By BRODY MULLINS And JOHN D. MCKINNON

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending.

AFSCME, the public-employees union, has vaulted ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to become the largest campaign spender of 2010.

The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats' hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending.

"We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."

The 2010 election could be pivotal for public-sector unions, whose clout helped shield members from the worst of the economic downturn. In the 2009 stimulus and other legislation, Democratic lawmakers sent more than $160 billion in federal cash to states, aimed in large part at preventing public-sector layoffs.

Last edited by scottw; 01-18-2011 at 12:18 PM..
scottw is offline  
Old 01-18-2011, 12:32 PM   #84
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
States Warned of $2 Trillion Pensions Shortfall
Published: Tuesday, 18 Jan 2011 | 4:51 AM ET Text Size By: Nicole Bullock, Financial Times
Twitter LinkedInMore Share
US public pensions face a shortfall of $2,500 billion that will force state and local governments to sell assets and make deep cuts to services, according to the former chairman of New Jersey’s pension fund.

[/B].
$2.5 trillion in pension shortfall. There are 300 million people living in this country, so that works out to $8,333 for every person living here.

Are there really a lot of people here who feel that asking for another $8,333 per person, on top of the taxes you currently pay, is reasonable? And bear in mind this is just the PENSION shortfall. In CT at least, the healthcare benefit shortfall is higher than the pension shortfall, so you can bet that what you owe is significantly more than $8,333 per person. These are contractual obligations that are unfunded, so these union members are expecting that money. which is guaranteed by contract (until municipalities declare bankruptcy, which gives them the legal right to re-negotiate.

And faced with this crisis, voters in CT went even heavier in favor of Democrats. Unbelievable.

And the federal unfunded obligations for social security and medicare? Those are in the tens of trillions. According to Likwid, if you take issue with any of this, you are a crybaby who can't make his own way in life.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-18-2011, 12:49 PM   #85
likwid
lobster = striper bait
iTrader: (0)
 
likwid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Popes Island Performing Arts Center
Posts: 5,871
Send a message via AIM to likwid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
"We'll say joe bob's property taxes were 1500, and in 6 years went up to 3000.
If he can't afford that, there's something wrong with him. Not the town."

Likwid, if Joebob isn't as fortunate as me, he might work for a company that is freezing raises. On top of that, everyone's medical insurance costs more. So if Joebob is forced to live with less, why do unionized employees always, always get more.
Poor joe,he should be worrying about himself, not what unions are doing. Maybe joe should have started looking for a new job! But hey, if joe just wants to sit in the same place, complain and whine about how horrible the world is to him, whatever, his problem, not anyone else's.

Quote:
As I said likwid, I am fortunate enough to be able to pay whatever they want to tax me, my kids are still fine. But please re-read the question at the title of this thread. If teachers, cops, etc switched to 401(k)'s, property taxes could be reduced significantly. Instead of calling me a crybaby, how about answering the first question I asked...why can't teachers and cops live with 401(k)'s like the rest of us? What is the reason? Anyone?
Why should they?

Quote:
In my town, the first education proposed budget for this year called for a 4% increase in spending over last year, and the teachers union is talking about all the sacrifices they made to keep the increase at 4% (still keeping their pensions, naturally).
Please itemize the 4% here for us. Thanks.

Quote:
The amount teachers receive ought to be proportional to the amount that the public has available to give them. And collectively, we don't have 4% more than last year, we have less. But their budgets never, ever, ever decrease.
How many kids did the school's population increase by?

Quote:
Finally likwid, how come you never address my repeated point about current debt levels. If what we pay these parasites isn't excessive, why are so many municipalities in so much debt, that their bond ratings are being downgraded? If CT takes in enormous tax ravenue, plus gazillions from the casinos, and we still have the highest debt (per citizen) in the country, doesn't that necessarily mean we spent recklessly?
We all know CT is screwed, has been screwed, will always be screwed. For the amount of time you spend complaining about it, maybe its time to move to somewhere better? I've done it. You can too!

Quote:
You like to make fun of Joebob, Likwid. But he knows something that you (and certainly teachers unions) have not figured out yet...whatever you have, you need to spend less.
Joebob was never made fun of, just his own hypocrisy pointed out. Maybe he should stop complaining, stand up, and do something for himself for once instead of complaining about others?

And I believe, I have a leg up on Joebob, I live within my means.

I'd be really careful how much you complain about unions around here, a large portion of the members are union.

Ski Quicks Hole
likwid is offline  
Old 01-18-2011, 01:05 PM   #86
RIJIMMY
sick of bluefish
iTrader: (1)
 
RIJIMMY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 8,672
likwid, your argument is basically that "we the people" have no say in what our governments spend $ on or how much we pay?
If taxes get to be to much, is that we dont live within our means?
I dont know you but I can pretty much conclude that you're single and dont have kids. Expenses, such as taxes, take on a different meaning once you have financial decisions that impact others.

making s-b.com a kinder, gentler place for all
RIJIMMY is offline  
Old 01-18-2011, 01:13 PM   #87
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by likwid View Post
Why should they?



You know what Likwid? That's a fair question. And unlike what you do to my posts, I will respond directly to this fair question. (whereas you dodge and insult, and ask other questions)

Likwid asks, why should teachers and cops switch to 401(k)'s.

20 years ago, the entire private sector (which, unlike teachers, must make people WANT to buy their services) realized that pensions were not sustainable. There was no way that private businesses could ask their customers to absorb those costs (by the way, that's one o fthe reasons GM couldn't compete with the Japanese car companies; something liek $3,000 was added to the cost of every American car because of union demands). So the private sector switched to 401(k)s.

The public sector SERVES THE PUBLIC. The public sector, by definition, does not create wealth, it takes wealth away from the public they serve. Therefore, it stands to reason that public sector benefits be somewhat in line (or slightly less than) private sector benefits.

In other words, if the private sector cannot get away with passing pension costs onto its customers, why should the public sector be able to FORCE those same costs on to us? By what logic are pensions less painful to pay for in the public sector, than the private sector?

Finally likwid, you ask why they should switch? Did you read Scott W's post above? Pensions are bankrupting most states. They should switch because, OBVIOUSLY, there isn't enough money to continue to fund pensions.

I think I've answered your question directly. For once, how about you return the courtesy? WHAT IS THE REASON WHY PUBLIC SECTOR FOLKS GET TO HANG ONTO ANTIQUATED BENEFITS THAT EVERYONE ELSE REALIZED, 20 YEARS AGO, WERE TOO EXPENSIVE TO BE SUSTAINABLE? Why is it reasonable for public unionized employees to force costs upon us, that no one would voluntarily pay for?

I await your reply sir.

Last edited by Jim in CT; 01-18-2011 at 01:20 PM..
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-18-2011, 01:15 PM   #88
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIJIMMY View Post
I can pretty much conclude that you're single and dont have kids. Expenses, such as taxes, take on a different meaning once you have financial decisions that impact others.
That, or he is a member of a public union, or he is married to someone who is...or he's successful enough to not have to worry about these debt levels that will soon have a crushing impact on everyone who's not a millionaire.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-18-2011, 01:17 PM   #89
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by likwid View Post
I'd be really careful how much you complain about unions around here, a large portion of the members are union.
Of course. In this economy, they're the only ones who can afford boats, and the only ones with enough free time to use them.

Too bad if they don't like hearing the truth, they work for the rest of us. And the rule of "you can't spend what you don't have" applies to them too.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-18-2011, 01:18 PM   #90
Fly Rod
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Fly Rod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Gloucester Massachusetts
Posts: 2,678
Confucious say, he/she who complains about what the other worker gets in their benifit package, has to much free time.
Fly Rod is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com