Federal PBGC, created by Union, has a negative $62 Billion net worth, may need to be bailed out (employment, accuse)

[greywar]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

ehehehee.....eehhheeehee, how funi.....

I suppose i could have added more about public risk, private profit. Its seriously messed up.

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by greywar

I suppose i could have added more about public risk, private profit. Its seriously messed up.

Well, it would become a public risk if there is a bailout, but so far that has not happened. Maybe the Congress has to raise the rates again, but it doesn't help that such action requires an act of Congress. The rates were set just last year.

[greywar]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

Well, it would become a public risk if there is a bailout, but so far that has not happened. Maybe the Congress has to raise the rates again, but it doesn't help that such action requires an act of Congress. The rates were set just last year.

and congress is too influenced by large com0panies that would pay rates reasonable enough to cover it. Its a serious problem.

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by greywar

and congress is too influenced by large com0panies that would pay rates reasonable enough to cover it. Its a serious problem.

Yes, it could become a big problem affecting a lot of people who live off of pensions. GOP needs to decide if they are going to be what they claim to be, and let it sink, and take the pensioners down with it, or if they are going to be just like Dems and throw tax payer money at the problem.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by greywar

Why? whats your issue with it? That it demonstrates a interest in war spending rather then spending on our people?

Is your response what represents a quality response? The irony is hilarious

One of them is the responsibility of the federal government, the other one isnt..

If you dont know which is which, you shouldnt be posting here

[Icy Tea]

The country is bankrupt yet both parties keep getting votes of approval despite them both wrecking it.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by dysgenic

Exactly, well said.
"We got money for war but can't feed the poor."

A) Um, wars are an economic stimulus which actually creates jobs, hence feeding the "poor"
B) they arent poor

[greywar]

Originally Posted by pghquest

One of them is the responsibility of the federal government, the other one isnt..

If you dont know which is which, you shouldnt be posting here

Both are in fact our governments responsibility. The level of each is the big debate. I'm for more of a actual defensive military, while I also see the need for government spending on our people. I have lots of disagreements with how much of it, and how that is spent in that area too.

See general welfare clause.

[greywar]

Originally Posted by pghquest

A) Um, wars are an economic stimulus which actually creates jobs, hence feeding the "poor"
B) they arent poor

A isnt as true as it used to be. far more of it is spent in ways that do not help OUR poor at all.

B It depends on your definition.

[Kracer]

Originally Posted by greywar

and congress is too influenced by large com0panies that would pay rates reasonable enough to cover it. Its a serious problem.

If congress is 'too influenced' then the electorate cast their votes for the wrong representatives.