Problem with public unions (Baby Boomers, spokeswoman, insurance, private school)
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.
No, what the voters did in San Jose is to renege on agreements and contracts that were already signed. It's unjustifiable to negotiate a contract, then years later back out of the contract after the other side fulfilled their part of the bargain. It's also legally questionable.
Where does this stop? Next, the voters will vote to lower their rents.
The voters never had a say in the contracts. They were negotiated by city officials (who benefited from them) and the union. They were closed door negotiations that the public were not involved with. Everyone involved deserves to go to jail. The gravy train is now exposed. Public employees are a parasite on society. I hope they all lose what they never earned.
You are joking right? Social Security is bankrupt, and Medicare is the single largest liability facing the Federal Government going forward. Combined they have an unfunded liability of $107 TRILLION!
The only reason government uses private contractors is because they cannot compete. The military’s budget is 700 billion dollars! That is one third of the total Federal Tax revenues!
The Post Office has not operated in the black in decades. I mean seriously, nothing the government does is efficient or cost effective. The Federal Government is 15 TRILLION in debt at present and that is a drop in the bucket compared to future liability. I will bet you cannot even correctly write that number much less understand it.
There are currently over 30 States in financial trouble and the number of cities and counties is virtually uncountable. In short everything government touches in deeply in debt and mismanaged. The amount of government debt is not a crisis, it is a complete disaster. And in the face of all of this the uber-greedy government employees are stomping their feet and demanding six figure retirement programs. What they actually deserve is to be cut off without a dime for what they have done to this once great country and its citizens.
I think you need to brush up on actual facts, not what they pawn off as facts on right-wing radio.
Social Security has not contributed one dime to the deficit.
Quote:
The most important take-away points from the 2012 Trustees Report will be that Social Security has a large and growing surplus; that without any Congressional action, Social Security will continue to pay benefits to America’s eligible working families for decades; and that with modest legislated increases in revenue, it will continue to pay those benefits for the next century and beyond.
Because the economic recovery and wage growth have been slower than expected and the cost of living was higher, this year’s report is likely to project that the number of years that Social Security can continue to pay benefits in full with no Congressional action will be a year or two shorter. But it is still decades away -- and the precise year has fluctuated in virtually every Trustees Report, sometimes sooner, sometimes later. The fluctuation is unsurprising given the uncertainties related to projecting inflation, wage growth, productivity, immigration rates, fertility rates, and other factors so far into the future.
Medicare faces the same problem that private insurers face, medical costs rising faster than inflation. If Medicare is facing unsustainable liabilities so are private insurers.
The US Postal Service has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s with the minor exception of subsidies for costs associated with the disabled and overseas voters. All revenue derives from services.
Social Security has not contributed one dime to the deficit.
Medicare faces the same problem that private insurers face, medical costs rising faster than inflation. If Medicare is facing unsustainable liabilities so are private insurers.
The US Postal Service has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s with the minor exception of subsidies for costs associated with the disabled and overseas voters. All revenue derives from services.
You are resorting to trying to twist facts and truth to support an unsuportable position. The deficit and the unfunded liability of Social Security and Medicare are seperate catagories of government debt and you know that, you are only trying in vain to confuse other readers.
As far as your statement about the post office you are also being dishonest in attempting to make it sound as if the Post Office is finanacially solvent. It is nothing of the kind.
As the USPS’s finances have deteriorated, its ability to absorb operating losses has been diminished greatly. Between FY2005 and FY2011, the USPS’s debt rose from $0 to $13 billion. (The agency’s statutory debt limit is $15 billion). In July 2009, the GAO added the USPS’s financial condition “to the list of high-risk areas needing attention by the
Congress and the executive branch.
$13 billion in debt and growing that will never be repaid. Current quarterly losses are in the area of $3 billion.
Your turn....
Social Security has not contributed one dime to the deficit.
Quote:
The most important take-away points from the 2012 Trustees Report will be that Social Security has a large and growing surplus;
Medicare faces the same problem that private insurers face, medical costs rising faster than inflation. If Medicare is facing unsustainable liabilities so are private insurers.
The US Postal Service has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s with the minor exception of subsidies for costs associated with the disabled and overseas voters. All revenue derives from services.
wow totally false
SS trust fund...full of unpayable IOU's
post office not getting taxpayer dollars????? the UPS has been bailed out for the past few years...2011...5.5 billion....2012..another 5 billion.......the last year the post office ran a profit was 2005
medicare/medicaid...the 900 billion dollar a year gorilla in the room
The problem is, now the taxpayers are beginning to wise up. Today Wisconsin, tomorrow the rest of the country!
Yep, you're right. This is some more good news.
"Residents of San Diego and San Jose voted overwhelmingly to cut the pension benefits they give city workers. And they did so in a way governments traditionally avoid: moving to cut not just the benefits of future hires, but also those of current city workers, whose pensions generally have much stronger legal protections than those of private-sector workers."
While "many municipalities spend more in pensions than they do on education, or maintenance of essential services," members also contribute to those pensions.
The bigger problem is states that establish pension plans then underfund them because they'd rather give tax-cuts or spend those funds on projects. When the underfunding comes to roost, those politicians have long retired themselves, leaving some future governor to deal with the problem.
There are many issues with public pension plans. Not all are bad, but in some states, the promises are just too big to ignore. For starters, any public sector worker who can retire on a pension of 50-80% of current wages would need to be contributing about 20-30% minimum for such a system to exist. Most pension plans operated on the silly belief that their stock market investments would constantly return somewhere between 7-15%. When that didn't happen, or heaven forbid, hell froze over and the market went down, the unions want to cry foul and demand tax hikes on everyone to keep their over generous pensions.
One really big problem with pensions is that they are tied to wages. This alone allows to too much greed and corruption. You will see four or five police officers or firefighters hired on at smaller departments. A couple of that group will advance their careers, one maybe even becoming the department head. Then they reach down to their friend who has been at the starting level for say 10-15 years. Some make some silly indoor, Mon-Fri. job, sometimes making it a higher paying job. So the buddy gets promoted to this higher paying gig and spikes their pension payout. In the worst cases I've read about, some departments would even allow a cash our of all sick and vacation time, which counts as wages that last year. We are talking some people cashing in a whole years worth of time at their current rate of pay. They spike their pension calculation, thus getting a bigger payout.
If we were going to keep pensions for government workers, the following needs to be done:
#1: All public workers will pay into social security. There is no reason government workers should be exempted from the worlds biggest ponzi scheme. They can work till their 60s, not 50s, to obtain benefits like the rest of us.
#2: The social security pension off-set should go away for those under the new system who contribute to the ponzi scheme. They will be paying into the system, and they should get their payout on what they have paid in like everyone else.
#3: One pension for all. No more special pensions for cops, firefighters, teachers, judges, elected officials, etc.. Everyone gets the same pension. If you want more in your retirement years save more money. Advance in your field and make more money, and save more of that. It is sickening that judges and prosecutors here make six-figures a year, yet somehow need a much more generous pension payout than the state worker who mows laws for the parks department making $27-$35K/year.
Seriously, who cares. Anyone can post a link to prove their point on either side whether it is correct or not. In saying that, I have no opinion on this matter either way, but I am posting this link below to prove my point:
"When Texas Gov. Rick Perry, then in the early stages of his short-lived quest for the Republican presidential nomination, referred to Social Security as "a Ponzi scheme," he was excoriated by the press, left and right, and by his fellow Republicans, as well. Earlier this week, government actuaries revealed that Perry was correct."
Seriously, who cares. Anyone can post a link to prove their point on either side whether it is correct or not. In saying that, I have no opinion on this matter either way, but I am posting this link below to prove my point:
"When Texas Gov. Rick Perry, then in the early stages of his short-lived quest for the Republican presidential nomination, referred to Social Security as "a Ponzi scheme," he was excoriated by the press, left and right, and by his fellow Republicans, as well. Earlier this week, government actuaries revealed that Perry was correct."
You are using as your "evidence" an opinion piece by Andrew Napolitano, who often tries to pass off his right-wing biased opinions as facts. From that link:
Quote:
That revelation, which was greeted with a ho-hum by the media, basically announced that by 2033, 21 years from now, the so-called "Social Security trust fund" will be empty.
You are using as your "evidence" an opinion piece by Andrew Napolitano, who often tries to pass off his right-wing biased opinions as facts.
As I said in my post, I am neutral on this issue as I do not know enough about social security to determine if it is a ponzi scheme or not. It seems the link you posted is from a left-wing biased site. See what I mean?
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.
as "a Ponzi scheme," he was excoriated by the press, left and right, and by his fellow Republicans, as well. Earlier this week, government actuaries revealed that Perry was correct."
