Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I never made one comment about pensioners or government workers. Unions are part of the issue so mentioning them was appropriate.
As well as talking about the irresponsible voters who keep voting in these types of officeholders.
Who put those politicians in place? Yep the people.
Sure and after this is done then what's the solution to killing the unsustainable pension system in CA?
I'm smart enough to know that when a person ascribes portions to me that I don't hold or imply, that I dealing with a poster who is disingenuous in forum discussions.
Interesting the only person talking about breaching a contract is you. I'm not talking about breaching contracts so why do you keep bringing that up?
The only people being punished now are those living in cities where basic public services are about to be cut or taxes raised to provide basic public services.
It's also these folks who are being punished simply for driving their cars on the roadways.
You seem to not be aware that the investment in California’s roads, highways and bridges is funded by local, state and federal governments.
A lack of sufficient funding at all levels will make it difficult to adequately maintain and improve the state’s existing transportation system.
If pensions are sucking these monies away then the pension system in CA needs to be overhauled or watch the infrastructure become more and more what you find in developing nations.
Most politicians are people. As people they are mixtures--they do some things voter A likes, some things voter A dislikes. None of us ever have the chance to vote in candidates that are going to do everything we like. So judging people for voting in candidates that did not fulfill their agreements is kind of silly--voters had no way to make that happen, and even if they voted out a candidate, no guarantee the next one would do better. Judging from the pension crisis existing all over this country, regardless of political party in control (or lack of a party in control), it is pretty lame to lay the blame for the fiasco at the foot of the voters.
You say you understand the issue. Who do you think is getting that pension you want to "reform?" I'll help you out: It is pensioners. You don't have to use the word to talk about the category. If I say "Oval Office Occupant" or if I say "Commander in Chief," people know I mean the president. I don't have to say "the president" to be talking about the president. It's pretty silly wordplay to claim you are not talking about people with pensions who already did the requested work. It would be lacking in integrity to wail against pensions, and unions, and then claim NOT to be wailing against the people who have the pensions.
You say you are not talking about government workers. That's . . . I just don't know what to say. Governments have an unfunded liability they accrued by not funding the pensions of GOVERNMENT WORKERS--you know, firefighters, police officers, teachers. Private companies also have some unfunded liabilities, but the government is not on the hook for those. So if you're talking about taxes to pay for pensions, you are talking about government liabilities which means you are talking about people who have pensions because they did the work of the government--putting out fires, chasing down criminals, teaching kids. Again, why is this so hard for you?
So judging people for voting in candidates that did not fulfill their agreements is kind of silly.
Not fulfilling their agreements is quite different from being incompetent and corrupt. I think it's reasonable to judge people who run out and vote straight political party without doing their homework.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SocSciProf
--voters had no way to make that happen, and even if they voted out a candidate, no guarantee the next one would do better.
Great system we have eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SocSciProf
Judging from the pension crisis existing all over this country, regardless of political party in control (or lack of a party in control), it is pretty lame to lay the blame for the fiasco at the foot of the voters.
We the people shape what's going on in our state by the people we vote for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SocSciProf
You say you understand the issue. Who do you think is getting that pension you want to "reform?" I'll help you out: It is pensioners.
I'm talking about the pension system. You can talk about the pensioners all you want but I am strictly referring to the unsustainable pension system that's glaring down on CA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SocSciProf
You say you are not talking about government workers. That's . . . I just don't know what to say.
I'm talking about a system that's unsustainable. I am not talking about any individual person who benefits from this system. I am talking about the unsustainable system in place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SocSciProf
Governments have an unfunded liability they accrued by not funding the pensions of GOVERNMENT WORKERS--you know, firefighters, police officers, teachers. Private companies also have some unfunded liabilities, but the government is not on the hook for those. So if you're talking about taxes to pay for pensions, you are talking about government liabilities which means you are talking about people who have pensions because they did the work of the government--putting out fires, chasing down criminals, teaching kids. Again, why is this so hard for you?
Your bleeding heart soap box has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Pensions that are sustainable are fine. Those that are not need to go. It's a pretty simple concept to understand don't you think?
If a pension system is a major cause of any city to not be able to provide basic public services as well as take money away from maintaining the infrastructure, then that type of system needs to go. If not then the entire city will crumble under a dilapidated infrastructure.
Pensions that are sustainable are fine. Those that are not need to go. It's a pretty simple concept to understand don't you think?
The negotiated pensions were sustainable. Any that are unsustainable are unsustainable because specific politicians (not parties) betrayed their duty.
Pension crises grow slowly. Maybe you didn't know that. What that means is that the politicians who created the mess are probably no longer in office. So voting out today's politicians for something that was done in 1970 is pretty useless. What should happen is, as I said, criminal prosecution (of any still living) and asset seizure (even if it means clawing money back from heirs).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
If a pension system is a major cause of any city to not be able to provide basic public services as well as take money away from maintaining the infrastructure, then that type of system needs to go. If not then the entire city will crumble under a dilapidated infrastructure.
Big "If," which you have not proven--you have not proven that pensions are the cause of shortfalls in service provision. The same logic of politics that underinvested in pensions could just as easily take any money shaved off of pensions and spend it just as poorly, leaving the infrastructure no better and retirees worse off. Consequently, lots of other policies may be more important that pensions. Prop 13, which leads to massively unequal property taxes, is one example. Poor priorities--for example, spending millions to keep homeless people homeless and attract even more homeless--is another example.
Finally, how well do you think the city will run if no one of quality will work for it because they know governments pay less than comparable private businesses, and government promises of compensatory pensions were not honored in the past and thus may not be honored in the future? In other words, there's more than one way to make a society fail to work. If good firefighters, police officers, and teachers won't work for the defaulting government, the defaulting locale will end up with bad firefighters, bad police officers, and bad teachers--or insufficient numbers of any of those and other critical positions. That could end up costing far far more than anyone "saves" by reneging on prior contracts. I mean, ask YOURSELF this, Matadora--would YOU take a career job with an organization that had a history of making promises to pay someone when they retire, but then failing to do so?
As I said, there's more than one way to make a society fail to work. Reneging on promises is one such way.
The negotiated pensions were sustainable. Any that are unsustainable are unsustainable because specific politicians (not parties) betrayed their duty.
Pension crises grow slowly. Maybe you didn't know that. What that means is that the politicians who created the mess are probably no longer in office. So voting out today's politicians for something that was done in 1970 is pretty useless. What should happen is, as I said, criminal prosecution (of any still living) and asset seizure (even if it means clawing money back from heirs).
This is so illogical I don't even know where to begin. I'm not talking about voting out today's politician for polices adopted in the 70's. However I would certainly be looking to vote in folks who want to undo bad policies. It's like all the people blaming Reagan for closing down all the mental institutions. That was a looooong time ago...so why aren't they voting in folks who want to bring back modern day mental institutions? Instead they sit around and whine about something Reagan did but never say a word as to why their team has not resolved this issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SocSciProf
Big "If," which you have not proven--you have not proven that pensions are the cause of shortfalls in service provision.
It's not a big if. It's a well known fact that a crumbling infrastructure is detrimental to economic stability.
This is the last sentence from the study I posted in the OP.
Quote:
If California is unable to maintain its current level of transportation investment, the cost to the public of deficient roads, traffic congestion, and a lack of adequate roadway safety will increase and economic development opportunities and quality of life in the Golden State will be diminished.
If a pension system is a major cause of any city to not be able to provide basic public services as well as take money away from maintaining the infrastructure, then that type of system needs to go.
I wrote:
Quote:
Big "If," which you have not proven--you have not proven that pensions are the cause of shortfalls in service provision.
You write back:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
It's not a big if. It's a well known fact that a crumbling infrastructure is detrimental to economic stability.
This is the last sentence from the study I posted in the OP.
You obviously know that I am not questioning the importance of infrastructure. To help you hear this I'll say it again, differently: I AGREE INFRASTRUCTURE IS IMPORTANT.
However, I pointed out that you can't prove that a major cause of poor infrastructure is unfunded pension liabilities.
Here's the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) map of the funding ratio of pension plans--1==BEST, 50==WORST:
And here's a map of FHA data on the 600,000 bridges in the U.S., color coded for structural integrity or lack thereof--light==SUFFICIENT, dark==DEFICIENT:
Iowa's got the 12th best pension funding ratio. LOOK at all those deficient bridges!
Oklahoma's got the 17th best, but tons of deficient bridges.
Wyoming, the 19th best funding ratio, tons of deficient bridges.
Louisiana and Arkansas, very different funding ratios, equally atrocious bridges.
Nebraska has a much better funding ratio than its neighbor Kansas, but much worse bridges than its neighbor Kansas.
Idaho has the 6th best funding ratio, much better than Oregon, but Oregon bridges are in better shape.
And South Dakota! Second-best funding ratio, atrocious bridges. Wisconsin, Minnesota, and North Dakota are in the same region as South Dakota, have better and worse funding ratios than South Dakota, and better bridges.
The big IF remains an IF. We KNOW infrastructure matters. But you have not proven that unfunded pension liabilities are a major cause of infrastructure quality.
I hope this makes this particular point clear. I note there's still no answer to how defaulting on pension obligations will affect future good police officer, good firefighter, and good teacher willingness to work in the defaulting jurisdiction. I suppose that thinking one move ahead is too tough for some.
At any rate, to end this odd back-and-forth, I am now signing out of this discussion. My final word--causality is not easy to establish, and the method of assertion, a favorite of political partisans on all sides, is always insufficient.
More irony coming from you.... Take a look in the mirror once in a while.
Quote:
First you never referenced anything. If you did can you point out which post you did this in? You said the census without referencing which census you were talking about.
What are you talking about? There's only one census in this country. Did you think each state had it's own census bureau or something?
Quote:
Stating that the Houston area has almost the same amount of drivers as the Bay Area is not too far off considering Houston is the 4th largest city in the US without a major public transportation system. Most people in Houston rely on a car compared to people living in SF.
Actually it was way off, by over a million vehicles. SF only makes up 10% of the Bay Area's population and most people in the metro area drive. This is your problem, you think your observations and assumptions are facts and don't bother to spend two minutes to look it up. And instead of just admitting you were WRONG you try say even more off the wall crap like "we drive big, polluting vehicles and everyone in the Bay Area are in Prius's so it's a wash" and try to deflect babbling on about how I didn't provide a source when I clearly did. And then you want to try and say I'm arguing for the sake of arguing???? You started this whole thread just to argue with people and that's exactly what you're doing.
That got really weird for a discussion about infrastructure.
FWIW, I'm from Houston and it's a bit of a give-and-take. Many of the freeways are in better shape than the ones here specifically mentioned by Matadora. However, many freeways there are constantly under construction for years at a time. Houston's capacity planning is terrible. Also, a couple of the ones he mentioned are toll roads for their whole run. That's another category, right?
Then there's I-10. It's nothing to be proud of. Yes, it is new and in good shape, but its like 24 lanes wide and just keeps growing. It's a polluting traffic mess that's dangerous because of its size.
That got really weird for a discussion about infrastructure.
Yes it did. I have nothing to say to those last to posters as they think they know it all and think they understand my stance. They don't have a clue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanoSF
Houston's capacity planning is terrible.
Compared to what? If you compare it to Austin or SF it's apples to oranges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanoSF
Also, a couple of the ones he mentioned are toll roads for their whole run.
You mean that SHE mentioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanoSF
That's another category, right?
How so? Infrastructure includes all roadways regardless if they are toll bridges that expand around the entire city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanoSF
Then there's I-10. It's nothing to be proud of. Yes, it is new and in good shape, but its like 24 lanes wide and just keeps growing. It's a polluting traffic mess that's dangerous because of its size.
I-10 is a beautiful freeway. Why do you think it's expanding? As long as people continue to have babies, without thinking of the consequences of overpopulation, the population will continue to grow and it always will. Humans are the reason the planet is polluted. We will never stop flying planes, moving cargo on ships, on trains and on 18- wheeler's. Then add on humans and cars.
Not sure how to do that line-by-line reply trick. Sorry. Sorry also to assume you were a "he". The "a" in Matadora should have been a giveaway ;-)
About Houston's capacity planning: I was referring to things like I-45, which has basically been under construction since the 50s, because it keeps being built to the present day's capacity, then widened every decade or so. It's truly a mess. And an ongoing one.
Houston believes it can continue to build freeways instead of effective public transportation or a solution that pollutes less. It can't. Freeways pollute and they are terrible eyesores. They are 1950s thinking. Houston is a place of innovation. It needs a better solution. I think driverless electric cars may be the way and it may happen sooner than you think.
Imagine if we didn't own personal cars. When you needed to go somewhere, you simply hail a car and it takes you there, safely and orderly without the need for traffic control. When that happens and SF is leading the way in this development, huge investments in 24-lane freeways that become obsolete almost as fast as they are completed will look pretty silly. I can't tell you how much I hate I-10 West. It is a massive heat island of concrete and smog, lined with strip centers.
The mood is different here regarding freeways and I like it. I wish we would have had more of an urban mindset back in Houston. Texans love their sprawl! That's fine I guess, but it wasn't for me.
Similar to where you live, the landscape in the Bay Area is something worth preserving, rather than just paving over. It wasn't always the case. I read this in the Chronicle today:
Imagine if we didn't own personal cars. When you needed to go somewhere, you simply hail a car and it takes you there, safely and orderly without the need for traffic control. When that happens and SF is leading the way in this development, huge investments in 24-lane freeways that become obsolete almost as fast as they are completed will look pretty silly. I can't tell you how much I hate I-10 West. It is a massive heat island of concrete and smog, lined with strip centers.
Los Angeles' I-405 (or the 405 as they say in SoCal) is the classic example out here - it's several lanes in many directions and always congested even with 24/7 HOV lanes. I-10 in SoCal isn't loved out in SoCal either.
Rather than snipe at each other, why don't we work together to make the transportation issue better?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can you list the one's that are not people?
