- This topic has 545 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 9 months ago by
afx114.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 15, 2011 at 7:56 PM #678450March 15, 2011 at 8:46 PM #677311
briansd1
GuestI guess a lot of people would argue that they had no choice but to flip houses because everybody was doing it. Plus they could not live with the low return on their savings.
CA renter, the financial bailout revived the stock market (and house prices) so all portfolios got bailed out to some extent (that’s why I feel that the bailouts were necessary).
Why should the taxpayers make the public pension funds whole? Why should the public suffer cut in services to cover pensions shorfalls?
Private individuals with 401ks don’t get bailed out by tax hikes.
BTW, the pension funds were never required to invest on Wall Street. They did so, expecting high rate of returns so that contributions could be minimized and money lavished on pay raises and such.
If I invest expecting high returns to sustain an abundant lifestyle, am I responsible for my losses and abrupt reversal in lifestyle when the worse happens? Or is my financial adviser responsible?
I always had the choice of accepting the low returns of treasuries and living a more modest life.
March 15, 2011 at 8:46 PM #677369GuestI guess a lot of people would argue that they had no choice but to flip houses because everybody was doing it. Plus they could not live with the low return on their savings.
CA renter, the financial bailout revived the stock market (and house prices) so all portfolios got bailed out to some extent (that’s why I feel that the bailouts were necessary).
Why should the taxpayers make the public pension funds whole? Why should the public suffer cut in services to cover pensions shorfalls?
Private individuals with 401ks don’t get bailed out by tax hikes.
BTW, the pension funds were never required to invest on Wall Street. They did so, expecting high rate of returns so that contributions could be minimized and money lavished on pay raises and such.
If I invest expecting high returns to sustain an abundant lifestyle, am I responsible for my losses and abrupt reversal in lifestyle when the worse happens? Or is my financial adviser responsible?
I always had the choice of accepting the low returns of treasuries and living a more modest life.
March 15, 2011 at 8:46 PM #677977GuestI guess a lot of people would argue that they had no choice but to flip houses because everybody was doing it. Plus they could not live with the low return on their savings.
CA renter, the financial bailout revived the stock market (and house prices) so all portfolios got bailed out to some extent (that’s why I feel that the bailouts were necessary).
Why should the taxpayers make the public pension funds whole? Why should the public suffer cut in services to cover pensions shorfalls?
Private individuals with 401ks don’t get bailed out by tax hikes.
BTW, the pension funds were never required to invest on Wall Street. They did so, expecting high rate of returns so that contributions could be minimized and money lavished on pay raises and such.
If I invest expecting high returns to sustain an abundant lifestyle, am I responsible for my losses and abrupt reversal in lifestyle when the worse happens? Or is my financial adviser responsible?
I always had the choice of accepting the low returns of treasuries and living a more modest life.
March 15, 2011 at 8:46 PM #678113GuestI guess a lot of people would argue that they had no choice but to flip houses because everybody was doing it. Plus they could not live with the low return on their savings.
CA renter, the financial bailout revived the stock market (and house prices) so all portfolios got bailed out to some extent (that’s why I feel that the bailouts were necessary).
Why should the taxpayers make the public pension funds whole? Why should the public suffer cut in services to cover pensions shorfalls?
Private individuals with 401ks don’t get bailed out by tax hikes.
BTW, the pension funds were never required to invest on Wall Street. They did so, expecting high rate of returns so that contributions could be minimized and money lavished on pay raises and such.
If I invest expecting high returns to sustain an abundant lifestyle, am I responsible for my losses and abrupt reversal in lifestyle when the worse happens? Or is my financial adviser responsible?
I always had the choice of accepting the low returns of treasuries and living a more modest life.
March 15, 2011 at 8:46 PM #678455GuestI guess a lot of people would argue that they had no choice but to flip houses because everybody was doing it. Plus they could not live with the low return on their savings.
CA renter, the financial bailout revived the stock market (and house prices) so all portfolios got bailed out to some extent (that’s why I feel that the bailouts were necessary).
Why should the taxpayers make the public pension funds whole? Why should the public suffer cut in services to cover pensions shorfalls?
Private individuals with 401ks don’t get bailed out by tax hikes.
BTW, the pension funds were never required to invest on Wall Street. They did so, expecting high rate of returns so that contributions could be minimized and money lavished on pay raises and such.
If I invest expecting high returns to sustain an abundant lifestyle, am I responsible for my losses and abrupt reversal in lifestyle when the worse happens? Or is my financial adviser responsible?
I always had the choice of accepting the low returns of treasuries and living a more modest life.
March 15, 2011 at 9:04 PM #677331jstoesz
ParticipantCome on CAR…These goals are not mutually exclusive. Just because we bailed out the financials, which I was against from the start does not mean that we should avoid the public sector problem. They are completely unrelated as far as the burden to the taxpayer/state is concerned. Do them both, but if you can only politically do one, than do one! If I were faced with an either or decision, it would be to kill the bankers, but that is not my decision…unilaterally of course.
The public unions have to go. if it makes good economic sense to pay firemen outlandish wages, than it will be so (as you claim). An accountable, fiscally speaking, government will make it so. But the unions are not the ones we should be looking to for responsible wages. We should be looking to what the market can bear. And if the market determines that adequate pay for fireman is 1XXk per year than an accountable government can pay that. Maybe I live in a fantasy land, but that makes sense to me.
As for the bankers, string them up.
Come on CAR stop holding the bankers as your hoop to jump through before addressing all the other state budget issues. I don’t think CA had a hand in TARP. So stop linking the two. They are two independent indiscretions that need to be dealt with independently.
March 15, 2011 at 9:04 PM #677389ParticipantCome on CAR…These goals are not mutually exclusive. Just because we bailed out the financials, which I was against from the start does not mean that we should avoid the public sector problem. They are completely unrelated as far as the burden to the taxpayer/state is concerned. Do them both, but if you can only politically do one, than do one! If I were faced with an either or decision, it would be to kill the bankers, but that is not my decision…unilaterally of course.
The public unions have to go. if it makes good economic sense to pay firemen outlandish wages, than it will be so (as you claim). An accountable, fiscally speaking, government will make it so. But the unions are not the ones we should be looking to for responsible wages. We should be looking to what the market can bear. And if the market determines that adequate pay for fireman is 1XXk per year than an accountable government can pay that. Maybe I live in a fantasy land, but that makes sense to me.
As for the bankers, string them up.
Come on CAR stop holding the bankers as your hoop to jump through before addressing all the other state budget issues. I don’t think CA had a hand in TARP. So stop linking the two. They are two independent indiscretions that need to be dealt with independently.
March 15, 2011 at 9:04 PM #677997ParticipantCome on CAR…These goals are not mutually exclusive. Just because we bailed out the financials, which I was against from the start does not mean that we should avoid the public sector problem. They are completely unrelated as far as the burden to the taxpayer/state is concerned. Do them both, but if you can only politically do one, than do one! If I were faced with an either or decision, it would be to kill the bankers, but that is not my decision…unilaterally of course.
The public unions have to go. if it makes good economic sense to pay firemen outlandish wages, than it will be so (as you claim). An accountable, fiscally speaking, government will make it so. But the unions are not the ones we should be looking to for responsible wages. We should be looking to what the market can bear. And if the market determines that adequate pay for fireman is 1XXk per year than an accountable government can pay that. Maybe I live in a fantasy land, but that makes sense to me.
As for the bankers, string them up.
Come on CAR stop holding the bankers as your hoop to jump through before addressing all the other state budget issues. I don’t think CA had a hand in TARP. So stop linking the two. They are two independent indiscretions that need to be dealt with independently.
March 15, 2011 at 9:04 PM #678132ParticipantCome on CAR…These goals are not mutually exclusive. Just because we bailed out the financials, which I was against from the start does not mean that we should avoid the public sector problem. They are completely unrelated as far as the burden to the taxpayer/state is concerned. Do them both, but if you can only politically do one, than do one! If I were faced with an either or decision, it would be to kill the bankers, but that is not my decision…unilaterally of course.
The public unions have to go. if it makes good economic sense to pay firemen outlandish wages, than it will be so (as you claim). An accountable, fiscally speaking, government will make it so. But the unions are not the ones we should be looking to for responsible wages. We should be looking to what the market can bear. And if the market determines that adequate pay for fireman is 1XXk per year than an accountable government can pay that. Maybe I live in a fantasy land, but that makes sense to me.
As for the bankers, string them up.
Come on CAR stop holding the bankers as your hoop to jump through before addressing all the other state budget issues. I don’t think CA had a hand in TARP. So stop linking the two. They are two independent indiscretions that need to be dealt with independently.
March 15, 2011 at 9:04 PM #678474ParticipantCome on CAR…These goals are not mutually exclusive. Just because we bailed out the financials, which I was against from the start does not mean that we should avoid the public sector problem. They are completely unrelated as far as the burden to the taxpayer/state is concerned. Do them both, but if you can only politically do one, than do one! If I were faced with an either or decision, it would be to kill the bankers, but that is not my decision…unilaterally of course.
The public unions have to go. if it makes good economic sense to pay firemen outlandish wages, than it will be so (as you claim). An accountable, fiscally speaking, government will make it so. But the unions are not the ones we should be looking to for responsible wages. We should be looking to what the market can bear. And if the market determines that adequate pay for fireman is 1XXk per year than an accountable government can pay that. Maybe I live in a fantasy land, but that makes sense to me.
As for the bankers, string them up.
Come on CAR stop holding the bankers as your hoop to jump through before addressing all the other state budget issues. I don’t think CA had a hand in TARP. So stop linking the two. They are two independent indiscretions that need to be dealt with independently.
March 15, 2011 at 9:05 PM #677326Participantduplicate deleted…
March 15, 2011 at 9:05 PM #677384Participantduplicate deleted…
March 15, 2011 at 9:05 PM #677992Participantduplicate deleted…
March 15, 2011 at 9:05 PM #678127Participantduplicate deleted…
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.