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.
And what of those from the state who should be held responsible for those "ludicrous agreements"? Should they be allowed to just walk away, pensions in hand? Should we just have another feel free to bash labor session while mismanagement is rewarded?
Sadly everyone to blame has walked away.
Everyone but old Bernie Madoff..patsy of the banksters.
Moral hazard was breached with the first financial downfall..Bear or Lehman..can't quite remember. The Fedgov stepped in and "made it good".
And it hasn't stopped. US taxpayers will be held responsible to repay all those debts at the end of the day.
Moral hazard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not take the full consequences and responsibilities of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to hold some responsibility for the consequences of those actions."
Sadly everyone to blame has walked away.
Everyone but old Bernie Madoff..patsy of the banksters.
Moral hazard was breached with the first financial downfall..Bear or Lehman..can't quite remember. The Fedgov stepped in and "made it good".
And it hasn't stopped. US taxpayers will be held responsible to repay all those debts at the end of the day.
Moral hazard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not take the full consequences and responsibilities of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to hold some responsibility for the consequences of those actions."
Not in Illinois. We just re-elected the very people who put us in the poorhouse to begin with.
Absolutely not. They should perhaps renegotiate the pensions. But getting rid of pensions has always been a bad idea. Besides, if you're not going to give someone a pension, you should say so up front, and not have them work for 2, 3, or 4 decades and THEN tell them that you're getting rid of pensions.
I know that Repubs dream about the day when earning a pension won't be possible. It brings them joy just thinking about it. Every country on Earth worth its salt has old folks that get pensions. It's the right thing to do in a society like ours.
My understanding of it, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that any earned benefits would remain but future earned benefits are on the table for renegotiation. That also includes all newly hired employees. The states should NOT be promising them the same pension benefits that got us to this point to begin with. So, people who had been working for the past 20, 30, and 40 years earning (lol) their pensions under their contract would still continue to be eligible for those already earned benefits.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,348 posts, read 54,477,544 times
Reputation: 40781
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Sadly everyone to blame has walked away.
Everyone but old Bernie Madoff..patsy of the banksters.
Moral hazard was breached with the first financial downfall..Bear or Lehman..can't quite remember. The Fedgov stepped in and "made it good".
And it hasn't stopped. US taxpayers will be held responsible to repay all those debts at the end of the day.
Moral hazard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not take the full consequences and responsibilities of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to hold some responsibility for the consequences of those actions."
It would seem to me that if Congress believes in cancelling pensions as a way of easing a government's financial burdens they should have the moral decency (In Congress? ) to cancel their own first.
The pensions will be not be eliminated, but they will be reduced. There is simply no alternative that would not do more harm than good.
We have to get back to common sense. One group cannot prosper at the expense of everyone else. Debts incurred over the past decade will cause hardships for people far into the future who had no say in their creation.
People need to realize that we need to begin to do what is good for the States and Country as a whole and not what benefits special interests.
Perhaps after we deal with the golden pensions, we will have the courage to deal with greedy corporate business practices.
We cannot survive as a unified country when 1% of the population owns nearly half of all the wealth.
Absolutely not! If a governor refuses to fund or underfunds or defunds, state worker pensions it should be an IMPEACHABLE offense. Peoples Exhib it A is New Jersey Governor Chris Christe.
Absolutely not. They should perhaps renegotiate the pensions. But getting rid of pensions has always been a bad idea. Besides, if you're not going to give someone a pension, you should say so up front, and not have them work for 2, 3, or 4 decades and THEN tell them that you're getting rid of pensions.
I know that Repubs dream about the day when earning a pension won't be possible. It brings them joy just thinking about it. Every country on Earth worth its salt has old folks that get pensions. It's the right thing to do in a society like ours.
Your definition of "know" is everyone else's definition of "make believe", or so it appears from what you have written above. The public employee pensions are consuming state budgets and cannot continue unmodified or there will be NOTHING for ANYONE, pensioneers or otherwise. Nobody is proposing eliminating the pension, your strawman notwithstanding (try wikipedia to learn about that term/tactic), but bringing them in line with sanity is necessary for the state's survival.
In CA, public employees, work for 20 years, retire at 55 and earn up to 150% or more of their annual salary for life, with full medical.
I would suggest that you keep your posts, somewhere close to within the bounds of fact. Just a suggestion, though, you are free to continue to delude yourself and others if you so wish.
It would seem to me that if Congress believes in cancelling pensions as a way of easing a government's financial burdens they should have the moral decency (In Congress? ) to cancel their own first.
Not federal pension, state pensions.
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.
) to cancel their own first.
