[quote=phaster][quote=CA renter]
Except that they have been using up all of their ammunition and there will be precious little left when the SHTF moment happens. They have masked the problem by *growing* the problem. The 2008 crisis was more difficult for them to manage than the 2000/2001 crisis, and the next one will be even worse because the numbers are growing larger and the problems are becoming more systemic with every new manufactured crisis.[/quote]
to give ya an idea how bad I think it is consider that Fannie Mae and Freddie “The two GSEs have outstanding more than US$ 5 trillion in mortgage-backed securities (MBS)”
BUT that MBS figure is dwarfed because the unfunded public pensions alone I read is in the 4.1 trillion dollar range, and the real “unfunded” public pension figure basically doubles if one considers health care costs
[quote=CA renter]
There is no smoke, nor any fire, from what I can see. If you have any evidence or reason to believe that there was fraud, please make your case.
[/quote]
been checking back every once in a while to see if anyone had something to add/say
As usual, phaster, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You like throwing shit at the wall to see what will stick, hoping that the readers of your posts won’t actually know anything about the issues. Unfortunately for you, you’ve come to the wrong place. If you have some data to back up that $4.1 trillion in unfunded pension liabilities, I’d sure like to see it. Out here in the real world…
“You see, the $3.8 trillion figure was an estimate of total liabilities, not unfunded liabilities. Since the pensions have $2.8 trillion in assets, their unfunded liabilities are just $1 trillion. Or, to put this in terms that may be understandable to Post readers, the unfunded liabilities are 0.22 percent of projected GDP over the next 30 years. And, as I noted in my earlier post, most state and local governments are already funding at levels that are consistent with making up this shortfall so there will no required tax increases or spending cuts to meet these future obligations.”
Nothing like hyperbole and propaganda to work up the uninformed masses!
And this was written in 2013. The unfunded liabilites are even lower now for many public entities, and many of them have already taken steps to pay them off. Add to this the fact that many local government agencies have already eliminated retiree healthcare…back in the mid-90s.
The most expensive cohort of public sector retirees, especially in California, are those who retired/will retire between ~2000 and ~2025 because they get both retiree healthcare AND the enhanced pension benefits in most cases. After that, the elimination of retiree healthcare for many public employees (largely phased in by the mid-90s) will result in an increase in retirement ages — irrespective of when they are technically “allowed” to retire — as these employees work longer in order to maintain healthcare coverage. This is a factor that has NOT been included in many (any?) of the pension forecasts, at least not yet.
Additionally, many employers have enacted a two-tier retirement system, and those employees will have lower retirement benefit formulas in addition to not getting retiree healthcare (though, in many cases, they cost more when they are working).
BTW, that link at the bottom of your post is for PRIVATE DB pension plans, not public (though I would fight every bit as hard to defend these workers/retirees, as well).
From your WAPO link:
“A measure that would for the first time allow the benefits of current retirees to be severely cut is set to be attached to a massive spending bill, part of an effort to save some of the nation’s most distressed pension plans.
The rule would alter 40 years of federal law and could affect millions of workers, many of them part of a shrinking corps of middle-income employees in businesses such as trucking, construction and supermarkets.
The measure is now before the House Rules Committee and is likely to be moved as an amendment to a massive $1.01 trillion spending bill, perhaps by late Wednesday. It is expected to pass the Senate by Thursday.
If passed, the change would apply to multi-employer pensions, where a group of businesses in the same industry join forces with unions to provide pension coverage for employees. The plans cover some 10 million U.S. workers.”
