- This topic has 161 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 2 months ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 1, 2012 at 10:01 AM #739029March 1, 2012 at 12:15 PM #739034
CoronitaParticipant[quote=captcha][quote=flu][quote=briansd1]BG and CA renter, you guys need to give it up.
Just in SD, it used to be that 5% of city revenue went to pensions, now it’s 25%.
I’m a bleeding heart liberal and even I think that we need an adjustment. Personally, I’d rather money be spent on services for citizens than pensions for former employees. As far as I’m concerned, retirees can be hung out to dry. 1.3 millions citizens are more important than a few thousand retirees. Sorry, but we need to have our priorities straight.[/quote]
Holy crap…. Wow… Brian, there’s some hope for you yet! :)[/quote]
Brian is a bleeding heart liberal when it comes to deportation of illegal immigrants. He never had issue with confiscation of deferred compensation owed to retired public employees.[/quote]
I kinda dig the new Brian actually. Either that or I’m just getting too old to care…No seriously, Brian you’re really starting to impress me. (Not that my opinion matters :))
March 1, 2012 at 1:10 PM #739038briansd1
Guest[quote=pri_dk]
Good observation. Although we can bicker bout the semantics of “entitlement,” that’s not the point. The point is that public pensions, SS, and Medicare are all in the same situation:– Money promised in the future, far more than will be available in any scenario
– Individuals are expecting this money
– There are three categories of solutions:
1) Raise taxes on those who don’t receive the payments
2) Cut the promised payments
3) Massively cut all other government functionsReality demands that some combination of 1,2, and/or 3 above be implemented. It’s the same for pensions, SS, and medicare.[/quote]
Big picture, yes…
But, in reality, we have different levels of government specifically because cities like Carlsbad have different resources and can do things differently than the Federal government.
The argument that municipalities should not balance their budgets until the bankers are put in jail, until there is federal entitlement reform, etc.. is ludicrous.
From a legal standpoint, municipal pensions are simply contracts between employer and employees. Those contracts can be renegotiated at the table or in bankruptcy court. Very different from Social Security.
March 1, 2012 at 1:22 PM #739040Guest[quote=captcha]
Brian is a bleeding heart liberal when it comes to deportation of illegal immigrants. He never had issue with confiscation of deferred compensation owed to retired public employees.
[/quote]As a proud liberal I speak for people don’t have a voice — the undocumented, the poor, the indigent.
Public employees are part of the establishment. They have plenty of health care, days off and pensions already.
March 2, 2012 at 2:10 AM #739092CA renter
Participant[quote=briansd1]You can’t compare SS to local pensions.
We can’t have 25% of municipal budgets go to pensions when the proper portion should be 5%. It’s as simple as that.[/quote]
“Social Security: Another 20 percent of the budget, or $707 billion, paid for Social Security, which provided retirement benefits averaging $1,175 per month to 34.6 million retired workers in December 2010. Social Security also provided benefits to 2.9 million spouses and children of retired workers, 6.4 million surviving children and spouses of deceased workers, and 10.2 million disabled workers and their eligible dependents in December 2010.”
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
And that’s for *today’s* recipients.
March 2, 2012 at 4:47 AM #739094Anonymous
GuestNow she’s arguing against Social Security – the core safety net for millions of elderly and disabled Americans.
Anything to protect her gravy train.
March 2, 2012 at 6:34 AM #739102no_such_reality
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
Lol, CAR … I’m still waiting for all these Piggs who think the public sector is paid too much to go thru the application process themselves and then sign all the releases necessary to open up their private lives and credit reports to the PTB so that they, too, can get “selected” to make the BIG BUCKS and eventually become “vested” to collect an unconscionable pension!
Any takers???
Ah …. I didn’t think so … :=![/quote]
The hundreds, if not thousands of applicants for a handful of positions not withstanding.
But let’s play along. I have 20+ years of experience, 10+ in management. I’m responsible for an organization that has dozens of employees. Compensation budget alone in the multi-millions. Capital budget in the tens of millions.
What’s my equivalent role? I’m curious, cuz, I’d be handful of years from retiring from it in the FD if I’d have hired on.
Is having moved like that even possible in the FD?
March 2, 2012 at 2:07 PM #739168bearishgurl
Participant[quote=no_such_reality][quote=bearishgurl]
Lol, CAR … I’m still waiting for all these Piggs who think the public sector is paid too much to go thru the application process themselves and then sign all the releases necessary to open up their private lives and credit reports to the PTB so that they, too, can get “selected” to make the BIG BUCKS and eventually become “vested” to collect an unconscionable pension!
Any takers???
Ah …. I didn’t think so … :=![/quote]
The hundreds, if not thousands of applicants for a handful of positions not withstanding.
But let’s play along. I have 20+ years of experience, 10+ in management. I’m responsible for an organization that has dozens of employees. Compensation budget alone in the multi-millions. Capital budget in the tens of millions.
What’s my equivalent role? I’m curious, cuz, I’d be handful of years from retiring from it in the FD if I’d have hired on.
Is having moved like that even possible in the FD?[/quote]
NSR, I’d have to know a little more about your educational background and your current and past (if different) job descriptions or classifications before I could tell you if there is a possible equivalent position you could qualify for in the public sector. Also, what branch of government were you thinking of applying to?
March 2, 2012 at 2:40 PM #739171all
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=captcha]
Brian is a bleeding heart liberal when it comes to deportation of illegal immigrants. He never had issue with confiscation of deferred compensation owed to retired public employees.
[/quote]As a proud liberal I speak for people don’t have a voice — the undocumented, the poor, the indigent.
Public employees are part of the establishment. They have plenty of health care, days off and pensions already.[/quote]
Right. My point was that it was not you who changed, it’s the conversation topic that is different.
March 3, 2012 at 3:42 AM #739200Participant[quote=pri_dk]Now she’s arguing against Social Security – the core safety net for millions of elderly and disabled Americans.
Anything to protect her gravy train.[/quote]
NEVER have I argued against Social Security!!!! Again, you are intentionally twisting my words and taking what I say out of context. You said you’d ignore me, so please “ignore” me and stop trying to mischaracterize me and my ideas.
I’m suggesting that if sdr is against retirement plans that are backed by the govt, he should start “saving taxpayers’ money” himself. The SS fund is worse shape than most public pension plans. Public sector workers will end up having to pay to “prop up” SS as well, even though they do not receive SS benefits. Do you see them whining about it and posting vicious things about SS recipients on a daily basis?
Again, it’s the hypocrisy that bothers me the most. And if he cares so much about people overpaying for things (either from the “private” or “public” market…the type of hat worn by the providers of goods/services doesn’t matter), then he should start by fighting the NAR and other lobbyists who spend fortunes in D.C. to enact laws and restrictions and force taxpayers and consumers to pay for programs (like govt-backed mortgages, various bailouts, foreclosure moratoriums, etc.) that benefit them.
Look in the mirror to make sure YOU are not part of the problem, first. I’ve known plenty of people who were ardent opponents of public unions and public employees…but were working for government contractors or married to govt employees and using those benefits. Make sure YOU are clean before you go around casting stones.
March 3, 2012 at 8:12 AM #739214sdrealtor
ParticipantI would happily opt out of SS as well as NAR if I could either. Also anytime I get a bill that has an optional lobbying contribution (there is one on my RE organization memberships) I ALWAYS OPT OUT! I own a timeshare which also has an optional contribution to a lobbying organization. Opt out of that also. I do what I can.
Have to laugh about the comment that public sector workers will have to prop up SS even though they get nothing from SS. Thats right, they get theirs from the approximately 30% most of us pay in combined federal, state and local taxes from those of us who pay an additional 7 to 15% toward SS already. Carry on.
March 3, 2012 at 8:48 AM #739222Guest[quote=CA renter]The SS fund is worse shape than most public pension plans.[/quote]
Absolutely false. Another made up fact in your reality.
(And now she’s off googling…and soon will be pasting entire pages of cut and paste from articles describing future SS shortfall projections – a problem that that has NOTHING to do with public-sector employees or general tax receipts. But she won’t get it. She never does…)
[quote]Do you see them whining about it and posting vicious things about SS recipients on a daily basis?[/quote]
There’s nothing to whine about. The only funds used for SS payments are from the tax that participants pay. SS is NOT a situation where one group bails out another, unlike public-employee pension shortfalls.
Social Security has never had a negative impact on the function of our government in any way, unlike what public pensions have done to cities like San Jose, Vallejo and many more. SS has not contributed a dime to the national debt thus far and EVERY proposed solution to projected future shortfalls involves cutting benefits to recipients who have already paid into it.
Nobody has ever proposed using public-pension funds to fix SS, but public-employee pension shortfalls ARE being covered with taxpayer money in many places TODAY.
And before you make up a bunch of crap to counter my arguments, be sure to read the many posts here that SK of CV has make about the topic of SS. He knows what he is talking about.
[quote]Make sure YOU are clean before you go around casting stones.[/quote]
There’s the crux of your problem: You make it personal.
Despite your repeated attempts to steer it in the wrong direction, this discussion is not about “clean” and “dirty” individuals, it’s about government policy and corrupt influence. It’s not about any person on this forum.
I’ve never asked what anyone here does for a living. It doesn’t matter. I have never criticized public employees, either collectively or as individuals on this forum. I happen to have great respect for many public employees especially teachers, police, and to some extent firefighters. But I do believe that – in general – public employee compensation is too high given the current economic conditions. The financial situation of many cities and the state offers undeniable proof. As a taxpayer, voter, and citizen I have every right to my opinions in this matter. We all do, no matter what anyone’s employer may be.
But my specific problem with you is that you are liar. Plain and simple, a liar.
March 3, 2012 at 9:02 AM #739229Participant+1 (except for the last part. dont think she’s a liar just biased based upon where she sits)
March 3, 2012 at 2:11 PM #739248Participant[quote=sdrealtor]I would happily opt out of SS as well as NAR if I could either. Also anytime I get a bill that has an optional lobbying contribution (there is one on my RE organization memberships) I ALWAYS OPT OUT! I own a timeshare which also has an optional contribution to a lobbying organization. Opt out of that also. I do what I can.
Have to laugh about the comment that public sector workers will have to prop up SS even though they get nothing from SS. Thats right, they get theirs from the approximately 30% most of us pay in combined federal, state and local taxes from those of us who pay an additional 7 to 15% toward SS already. Carry on.[/quote]
I won’t mix federal, state, and local pension plans and funding types, as they are all different. Suffice it to say, public pension contributions are a **tiny** fraction of federal expenditures. Public pension funds at the state level are also a very small portion of state expenditures (around 3-4%, IIRC). Municipal governments pay a higher portion toward pension contributions, as a percentage of expenditures, because almost all of their costs are payroll related — they are more heavily geared toward services than goods, and don’t pay for welfare/entitlement programs like the federal govt and states do.
FYI, public sector workers pay the very same local, state, and federal taxes that you do (but they don’t get to write everything off as a “business expense).” They don’t pay into SS because they don’t receive SS benefits. But if/when Social Security is no longer self-sustaining, taxes paid by public sector workers will likely be used to supplement/bail-out the SS program.
We keep rehashing this, but public sector workers pay more toward their retirement accounts than SS participants do. Obviously, they would be more inclined to have higher/better benefits. Again, public pensions are a form of deferred compensation, while SS is an entitlement/insurance program.
March 3, 2012 at 2:19 PM #739249Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]The SS fund is worse shape than most public pension plans.[/quote]
Absolutely false. Another made up fact in your reality.
(And now she’s off googling…and soon will be pasting entire pages of cut and paste from articles describing future SS shortfall projections – a problem that that has NOTHING to do with public-sector employees or general tax receipts. But she won’t get it. She never does…)
[quote]Do you see them whining about it and posting vicious things about SS recipients on a daily basis?[/quote]
There’s nothing to whine about. The only funds used for SS payments are from the tax that participants pay. SS is NOT a situation where one group bails out another, unlike public-employee pension shortfalls.
Social Security has never had a negative impact on the function of our government in any way, unlike what public pensions have done to cities like San Jose, Vallejo and many more. SS has not contributed a dime to the national debt thus far and EVERY proposed solution to projected future shortfalls involves cutting benefits to recipients who have already paid into it.
Nobody has ever proposed using public-pension funds to fix SS, but public-employee pension shortfalls ARE being covered with taxpayer money in many places TODAY.
And before you make up a bunch of crap to counter my arguments, be sure to read the many posts here that SK of CV has make about the topic of SS. He knows what he is talking about.
[quote]Make sure YOU are clean before you go around casting stones.[/quote]
There’s the crux of your problem: You make it personal.
Despite your repeated attempts to steer it in the wrong direction, this discussion is not about “clean” and “dirty” individuals, it’s about government policy and corrupt influence. It’s not about any person on this forum.
I’ve never asked what anyone here does for a living. It doesn’t matter. I have never criticized public employees, either collectively or as individuals on this forum. I happen to have great respect for many public employees especially teachers, police, and to some extent firefighters. But I do believe that – in general – public employee compensation is too high given the current economic conditions. The financial situation of many cities and the state offers undeniable proof. As a taxpayer, voter, and citizen I have every right to my opinions in this matter. We all do, no matter what anyone’s employer may be.
But my specific problem with you is that you are liar. Plain and simple, a liar.[/quote]
The only one who has ever lied or mischaracterized anyone here is YOU. Show a single post where I’ve lied. Quote the ENTIRE post (don’t do your usual “twisting the context” hack job where you don’t even include the entire sentence, much less the entire paragraph or post), and show everyone where I’ve lied. BACK IT UP.
If you don’t like the fact that I back up what I’m saying by posting articles, statistics, and links. Why don’t you actually PROVE what you have to say by “cutting and pasting” and posting links. SHOW US that SS is in less trouble than most public pension funds. BACK IT UP.
Sure, you’re entitled to your opinion, but when you resort to name-calling instead of using facts and logic (BACK UP YOUR “FACTS” WITH ARTICLES, STATS, AND LINKS), and when you lie and twist what other people are saying, YOU are making it personal, not I.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.