California's Demise Greatly Exaggerated (?) -- editorial -- (mortgages, houses)

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by Caliguy2007

I knew it all along that the problems facing this state were overexagerrated. California does have its problems but the media and of course the bashers make it seem much worst when in reality it isnt that bad. California is one of those states that keeps chugging along even when times are rough and despite all the negative things being said about it by others,I will always love California.

No one is saying people shouldn't love their state, but loving something and being realistic are 2 different things. I love AR (ca too as a matter of fact) but I am also aware of the problems both states face.

Nita

[.highnlite]

Problems are part of living, we go on living, most of us. For many on this forum who whine moan and complain about some aspect of living in this state, there are alternatives, 49 of them, which ever one the complainer picks, they will be complaining about that one pretty quick too.

[Reason42]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

Problems are part of living, we go on living, most of us. For many on this forum who whine moan and complain about some aspect of living in this state, there are alternatives, 49 of them, which ever one the complainer picks, they will be complaining about that one pretty quick too.

...you really shouldn't want some of us to leave. Trust me, you want my >10% (I'd suggest you ask the non-tax payers to go elsewhere).

Problems are part of life. Some people want to "fix" them, others want to "go on living". I truly want them "fixed", but if California gets cost prohibitive, I will have to go to one of the "other 49" for my kid's sake...

Just as my Grandparents came to California (get it?).




For the 3rd time...


[LEFT]Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Study: California Public Pensions Underfunded by Over $500B

California's three major public pension funds are underfunded by more than half a trillion dollars, according to a report released Monday, the San Jose Mercury News reports.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) commissioned the study, which was prepared by graduate students at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (Theriault, San Jose Mercury News, 4/5).
The study examined:

• The California Public Employees' Retirement System;
• The California State Teachers' Retirement System; and
• The University of California's retirement system (Walters, "Capitol Alert," Sacramento Bee, 4/5).

The three systems serve about 2.6 million retirees (Bussewitz, AP/Ventura County Star, 4/5).
Report Details
The Stanford report estimates that California's shortfall for government pensions and health care benefits is about $535 billion (Anderson, Contra Costa Times, 4/5).
Researchers tallied CalPERS' unfunded liabilities at $239.7 billion and CalSTRS' liabilities at $156.7 billion.
The new figures are significantly higher than previous estimates from the pension funds. In July 2008, CalPERS estimated its unfunded liabilities at $38.6 billion and CalSTRS estimated its liabilities at $16.2 billion (AP/Ventura County Star, 4/5).
Pension Liabilities Could Lead To Health Cuts, Other Changes
The Stanford report suggests that California would need to put $360 billion into its pension and health benefit systems immediately to have an 80% chance of meeting 80% of the obligations within 16 years (Contra Costa Times, 4/5).
Schwarzenegger in a statement (http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/14745/ - broken link) said the study "reinforces the immediate need to address our staggering pension debt." He added, "The consequences are clear: increasingly large portions of state funding for programs Californians hold dear such as schools, parks and health care will be diverted to pay for this debt."
The governor previously has proposed tightening eligibility requirements for retiree health care benefits and other changes to the pension system (AP/Ventura County Star, 4/5).
The new report echoes some of Schwarzenegger's proposals and calls for lawmakers to:

• Reduce benefits for new public employees;
• Raise annual pension contributions; and
• Shift workers into a partial 401k benefit plan (San Jose Mercury News, 4/5).

Read more: http://www.californiahealthline.org/...#ixzz19MgojLLk[/LEFT]










Another bit...

• California’s public pension and retiree health and dental care expenditures have quintupled since fiscal year 1998-99, from about $1 billion to $5 billion this year. Retirement spending is expected to triple again - to $15 billion - within the next decade.
• Since 1998, California’s state workforce has grown by 31 percent and taxpayers now pay for more than 356,000 state workers.
• Since 2008, California has added over 13,000 employees to the state payroll during this recession.
• California taxpayers are paying pensions that exceed $100,000 a year to over 12,000 former state and local government workers, including more than 9,000 state and local employees covered by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and over 3,000 former school administrators or teachers covered under the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS).
• In the 1960s, just one out of every 20 California state workers received “public safety” pensions. Now, one out of three state workers receives the lavish public safety benefits originally intended for the firefighters and police officers who put themselves in harm’s way.
• California taxpayers pay 85 percent of the health care premiums for most active state workers, 100 percent of the health care costs for most state retirees and 90 percent of health care costs for their families.
• CalPERS reported a loss of $56.2 billion for the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2009. CalSTRS posted a loss of $43.4 billion in 2009. California taxpayers are on the hook for funding shortfalls not made up by pension fund performance or employee contributions, so taxpayers will be paying more to make up for these pension investment losses.
• The public pension benefit increases passed in 1999 via SB 400, which offered retroactive benefit increases to government workers, were supposed to cost $650 million in 2010. That figure was based on CalPERS’s assessment of its “superior return on system assets.” The actual costs of SB 400 to taxpayers: $3.1 billion this fiscal year and $3.5 billion next year. SB 400 passed by a 70-7 margin in the Assembly, and unanimously (39-0) in the Senate.
• California is the only state in the nation that uses just one year – an employee’s final year salary – to determine their long-term pension benefits. Most states use three- or five-year periods to determine pension benefits, making their systems less susceptible to pension spiking.
• SB 2465, which implemented the one-year final salary rule in 1990, has cost taxpayers more than $100 million a year. It was supposed to cost “only” $63 million per year.

http://reason.org/studies/show/fix-c...pension-crisis

[.highnlite]

Best talk to poor ole Curmudgeon he is the only guy around here getting one of those inflated California State Pensions.

I don't care if tax payers or non tax payers leave, as long as they leave, this was a great state with 5 million people in it.

I get a normal cheesy pension from out of state, as I moved to CA to retire.

[Vascodagama]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

Dear Phil, It is shown throughout the world every day that Margaret Thatcher was wrong. Every modern industrial nation is socialist to some degree.
Socialism works, and to think it doesn't requires a complete absence of knowledge of the modern world.

Perhaps the most socialist country today is China, whose economics are beating the pants off the US.

You can persist in your belief, but you may as well also believe there are dragons living in the Sierra.

Texas wants you.

Your comment on China shows again you know nothing of what you speak. China is also on the verge of a massive economic collapse.

The ghost towns of China

[.highnlite]

Don, while I can understand you know more about satellites than I do, that is it. My guess is that you cannot even define socialism(hint, Glenn Beck can't either).

As for China on the verge of an etc etc. She may be on a verge, but the economic collapse won't happen.

[Vascodagama]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

Don, while I can understand you know more about satellites than I do, that is it. My guess is that you cannot even define socialism(hint, Glenn Beck can't either).

As for China on the verge of an etc etc. She may be on a verge, but the economic collapse won't happen.

OK ... I'll bite ... give me your definition of socialism

[.highnlite]

In the line of work I was in, we had these guys, they kept our radio systems working, they had trucks full of stuff and spent a lot of time on isolated mountains working on repeaters, they never saw the views, or felt the ruts in the roads.

They were radio techs, that is what they did, that is all they did. To this day, I think of technicians and engineering types in general as radio techs. There may be some that have interests or abilities outside their technical field of work, but, unless they demonstrate that, they are radio techs, and Don, you have not demonstrated interests or abilities outside your technical field (not that you have demonstrated that either, but this is hardly the place).

Category:Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is a reasonable description, although I think you could remove "public" and replace it with "government" and you would be more accurate.

A few more Socialist countries for you, America, France, Britain, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, there are plenty more, in fact all modern countries are socialist to some degree, some more than others.

The United States does something a bit unusual, in addition to direct socialism, like the VA medical system, the US supplies the dollars to private corporations to accomplish certain tasks, you can call that indirect socialism, like the post office, or Haliburton.

[Vascodagama]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

In the line of work I was in, we had these guys, they kept our radio systems working, they had trucks full of stuff and spent a lot of time on isolated mountains working on repeaters, they never saw the views, or felt the ruts in the roads.

They were radio techs, that is what they did, that is all they did. To this day, I think of technicians and engineering types in general as radio techs. There may be some that have interests or abilities outside their technical field of work, but, unless they demonstrate that, they are radio techs, and Don, you have not demonstrated interests or abilities outside your technical field (not that you have demonstrated that either, but this is hardly the place).

Category:Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is a reasonable description, although I think you could remove "public" and replace it with "government" and you would be more accurate.

A few more Socialist countries for you, America, France, Britain, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, there are plenty more, in fact all modern countries are socialist to some degree, some more than others.

The United States does something a bit unusual, in addition to direct socialism, like the VA medical system, the US supplies the dollars to private corporations to accomplish certain tasks, you can call that indirect socialism, like the post office, or Haliburton.

OK ... now I see what I'm dealing with ...

My statement stands, you again prove you no nothing of what you speak.

BTW, you don’t really know what socialism is … do you ... typical liberal

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by Don9

OK ... now I see what I'm dealing with ...

My statement stands, you again prove you no nothing of what you speak.

BTW, you don’t really know what socialism is … do you ... typical liberal

Well, Don9, now your turn to define "socialism" ... .highnlite provided you with a definition he can agree with ... in spite of the referred third-party definition supplied, you have responded saying he doesn't know what socialism is and by calling him a "typical liberal"? What about the Wikipedia definition do you disagree with? And, while you are at it, perhaps you'd consider defining what a "typical" liberal is, as well?

I'm not on the attack here ... I am genuinely curious to read your response and compare the two. I'm not a liberal, conservative, or even middle-of-the-roader ... I am from so far out in left field as to be from outer space ... you could've asked my father and mother, former commanding officers, employers, and any of my friends and had that confirmed (and by 'left' field I don't mean left as in politics)