[SK in CV]

[quote=sdduuuude]

Was just using a number. 15%, 2%, 20 %. Doesn’t matter. Effectively, the state is promising a certain return to its employees based on how much the employees pay to fund it and the amount they are promised. And, if that return isn’t met by the investors (which it wasn’t), it has to be made up by taxpayers. It’s a foolish thing to promise.[/quote]

Not exactly. The state doesn’t promise any return to it’s employees. It promises a certain series of payments to it’s retirees. It pre-funds these payments through a trust, and funding of the trust is based on certain actuarial assumptions. Funding is provided by a combination of payments from the state, payments from employees, and investment return. It is a sound model, one that has generally worked quite well for the last 70 years. But not one without risks. Current funding requires most current employees to cover about 55% of normal costs, while the state kicks in about 45% of normal costs. Unfunded liabilities are paid in by the state. So if the funds perform well, the state benefits.

[SK in CV]

[quote=sdduuuude]Nobody is entitled to a 15% return and certainly the taxpayers shouldn’t be making up for the shortfall.[/quote]

Just to add fuel, no 15% return assumptions were ever made. (As an aside, I don’t think
“entitled” belongs in that sentence anywhere, it doesn’t really fit.) I believe over most of the few years preceding the crash it was like 8%. And returns met or exceeded those assumptions. Except that one time when they didn’t. Before the crash, most public pensions were very close to fully funded (albeit with what in hindsight were faulty return assumptions). My recollection is that in 2007, CalPers was like 96% funded. I believe both CalPERS and CalSTRS, the two largest CA public retirement plans, are both now using 7.5% return assumptions.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=gandalf][quote=pri_dk]So the Mexican drug cartels have all the pension funds.[/quote]

Setting aside the sarcasm, we have this thing called a ‘Drug War’ and law enforcement routinely seizes assets from drug busts. The FBI runs an investigation a couple of years ago and learns there’s nearly $400 billion dollars worth of cartel drug money getting laundered through Wachovia Bank in the United States. As it turns out, the drug money is the only thing keeping Wachovia solvent. Holy fuck, huh? So the Obama Administration’s DOJ buries the case and settles out of court with a minor fine and no admission of wrongdoing.[/quote]

Setting aside the complete lack of credible source, if one drug cartel is moving $300 billion, then Americans are spending as much on drugs than they are on their homes.

[/quote]

It actually did happen, although I don’t remember the amount of laundered cash. But “buries the case” isn’t quite accurate. They paid $160 million in fines and forfeitures, the largest ever assessed under the Bank Secrecy Act. The admission of wrongdoing would have been moot since there were no individual criminal charges, and the bank had already been sold almost 2 years before the settlement to Wells Fargo, who immediately ceased doing business with the Mexican exchange houses.

[SK in CV]

[quote=urbanrealtor]So let’s suppose that markmax and I have a baby who because of his obvious genetic deficiencies becomes a zombie in my uterus. Forget for a moment that I dont have one. Would that fetus be abortable in Mississippi?

Would we need an activist judge?[/quote]

Thankfully we don’t have to worry about your little zombie since the failure of the life begins at fornication bill. (I think saw the video btw, on youporn.com.) If it had, it would raise some interesting questions. Is a zombie zygote ever alive? If not, isn’t it still entitled to due process rights? We need a zombie constitutional law expert!

[SK in CV]

[quote=walterwhite]I think my parents used to play scrabble and smoke with their buddies. I remember a little bit if cheese n crackers nobody ate. But lots of cigars and cigarettes.

I used to have to sit by a window not to choke.[/quote]

In college my buddies and I pretty much did the same thing. Cept I think we played rummy Q. And ate Jack in the Box tacos. With sour cream. And smoked something different.

My kids pretty much do the same thing except they’re vegetarian. They eat tofu stuff. And text each other while sitting in the same room. And listen to really loud horrible music that will probably destroy their brains. Kids these days.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]Alright since we are we are constitutional geniuses tell me how this:

insert 14th Amendment here

has anything to do with abortion. I have a bridge in brooklyn I can sell you too.[/quote]

The decision, as I recall, focused on “due process of law”.

I know, it’s complicated.

[SK in CV]

[quote=sdrealtor]

Does anyone else here understand what almost an acre of flat/usable southwest facing land on La Jolla Farms Road is worth? Lots of people with similar sounding names invovled on this one.[/quote]

Tell me please what it’s worth. It seems these buyers probably paid $2.5 million or more if they actually do the repairs recommended by the engineers. Is the lot worth that much?

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
I, too am a “local” govm’t “retiree” but will never avail myself of their health benefits as, in my case, they are priced at (expensive) COBRA rates. [/quote]

I don’t want to take this too far off topic, but this is the 2nd time recently that I’ve seen COBRA rates described as expensive. They are, but health insurance is expensive. Premiums are limited to 102% of what the employer was/is paying. So there is no substantial COBRA insurance premium over other medical insurance rates. If the emplyer got a good deal, the separated employee does too. (Provided the plan is age rated. If not, i.e., the employer paid flat rates regardless of the employees age, then younger separated employees would pay more, older separated employees would pay less.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
It CREATED a GOV authority in an AREA not authorized by Article 1 section 8! Why isn’t this clear to everyone?!.[/quote]

Because it didn’t create a government authority.

[quote=markmax33]All laws start with the Congress in the Constitution and the legislative branch in article 1 section 8. [/quote]

Except for those that don’t. Like all state and municipal laws. I thought Ron Paul liked states rights?

[quote=markmax33]
IF THERE IS NO AUTHORITY IN THAT AREA THE SUPREME COURT RULING IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.[/quote]

The authority is in Article III, Section 2. The ruling cites rights granted in the 14th amendment. It has nothing to do with anything in Art.I, Sec. 8.

I know Sec. 8 is pretty important to Ron Paul. I think he would be pretty embarrassed the way you’re throwing it around.

And be careful here. I’m setting a trap for you. Please don’t walk into it. It will hurt.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
Go read article 1 section 8 and tell me how the federal GOV had authority in that area! LOLOL![/quote]

You really don’t know anything about Roe v. Wade, do you?

It neither overturned nor upheld any federal laws.

oh, and i forgot. LOLOL!

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
You read article 1 section 8 and tell me how they were able to make that ruling. It should have never entered the Supreme Court.[/quote]

You’re looking in the wrong section to find how they were able to make that ruling. Try Article III, Section 2.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]ROE VS WADE is unconstitutional. Ask anybody. [/quote]

I’m pretty sure somebody did ask that question. And not just to anyone, but to the people that count. That would have been Norma McCorvey. She, through her attorneys, asked the SCOTUS in 1973. They answered. You may have heard of the case. Roe v. Wade.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
[quote=svelte]
– Anti-abortion (he is for defining life as starting at conception – it’s amazing how you spun this stance with your point #1 above!!!)
[/quote]

This is a lie 100%: From his website:

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

[/quote]

From HIS website page you linked to:

“He believes that human life starts at conception”

So which part is a lie? errr….a 100% lie?

[SK in CV]

[quote=KSMountain]
I haven’t read the decision but wasn’t the opinion written by Roberts? He’s a pretty smart cookie. It would be interesting to see what rationale he used to justify the decision.[/quote]

Decision written by Kennedy, with separate concurring opinions by Roberts and Scalia and some criss-crossing joins by Alito and Thomas. Dissent written by Stevens, joined by Sotomayor, Bryer and Ginsburg.

Corporations, like Soylent Green, is people.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
STFU. Interest rates over the last 30 years were probably 8% average and Clinton had a “balanced” budget because the stock market took off in 1999 and tax revenues went up exponentially. It crashed 1-2 years later. Clinton DID NOTHING TO BALANCE THE BUDGET. He was the benefit of luck by the fed policies at the time.[/quote]

But you were still wrong. Let me repeat what you said.

“there hasn’t been a President with a balanced budget”

There was. Three years in a row. You can make excuses. Explain it away. But your assertion is still wrong. It DID happen.

But..on the other hand….if Clinton was the “benefit [sic] of luck by the fed policy [sic] (again)”, and the fed has been keeping interest rates low for 30 years….how come it never happened before? If the fed could make that kind of magic, why didn’t they? hmmmmm.

And i know this isn’t really relevant. But when you just throw big words around that you don’t understand, it bugs me. Tax revenue went up. It did not go up exponentially. That’s a big word. You shouldn’t be using it. And the stock market didn’t take off in 1999. It took off in 1995. And didn’t crash 1-2 years later. It crashed 4 months after he left office, which would have been after about 6 1/2 years. Which is when the Fed lowered interest rates. But the budget was still balanced that fiscal year! Because of Fed magic! Oh, and the average federal funds rate over the last 30 years has been 5.14%.

4 mistakes in facts.
1 misuse of a big word.
1 gramatically butchered sentence.

All in a 5 line post.

I think we have a winner!

[Author]

Posts