ECON Despite Bailout, Pension Tsunami Threatens to Crush US

Cardinal

Chickministrator
_______________

American taxpayers are going to be completely destroyed by government-employee pension plans if drastic reforms do not happen–and soon.

The tax-funded pension plans of government employees are a ticking nuclear time bomb that threatens to blow the American taxpayer to bits, along with the economy. It may already be too late to stop it. And bailouts from a broke federal government will only make it worse.

Consider that even before the current crisis melted the economy, just state and local public pensions were facing a $5 trillion shortfall, according to a study by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. Total assets were about $4.3 trillion.

For perspective, Social Security, which serves everyone else — the other 83 percent of the population — has less than $3 trillion in assets.

Even if it were possible, having the broke federal government bail out these plans — concocted by government-employee unions and the political hacks they purchased — will not solve the problem. In fact, bailouts would only make everything much, much worse.

Obviously, the feds and the Federal Reserve have already been quietly bailing them out.

The absurdly named “CARES Act,” which apparently was meant to show how much your overlords care for you, funneled $190 billion to states, not including another $100 billion for government schools, Medicaid, and more. That is almost $250 billion to state and local governments — a number equivalent to about 3 months worth of state tax revenue.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve is quietly buying up endless amounts of state and municipal debt using currency created out of nothing. The Fed is also buying corporate debt, stock, and much more using front companies euphemistically dubbed “Special Purpose Vehicles.”

This is all insane, of course. And it’s going to end in disaster for everyone — including the government employees who are looting the taxpayer with help from politicians and the unions.

Not satisfied with that, though, Democrat states including New York and Illinois are now demanding yet another round of bailouts for their bloated state and local governments.

At first, Senate Majority Mitch McConnell took a hard line. “I would certainly be in favor of allowing states to use the bankruptcy route,” he said. “It saves some cities. And there’s no good reason for it not to be available.”

The constitutional implications of allowing sovereign state governments to declare bankruptcy were not discussed, and remain murky.

But McConnell correctly pointed out that those states would prefer to have Uncle Sam (and American taxpayers) pick up the tab.

“My guess is their first choice would be for the federal government to borrow money from future generations to send it down to them now so they don’t have to do that,” he said on a radio show. “That’s not something I’m going to be in favor of.”

Trump echoed those remarks on Twitter.

“Why should the people and taxpayers of America be bailing out poorly run states (like Illinois, as example) and cities, in all cases Democrat run and managed, when most of the other states are not looking for bailout help?” he asked. “I am open to discussing anything, but just asking?”

Within days, though, McConnell was already backpedaling, saying he was “open” to a deal that would rob future generations of Americans to prop up broke Democrat-run state and local governments, if they agreed to various strings he is seeking to attach such as limiting liability for coronavirus.

But of course, a federal bailout would make taxpayers and responsible voters in more fiscally prudent jurisdictions pay for the idiotic and insane government waste and looting of Democrat jurisdictions. And it also would not solve the pension problem, which affects virtually every government at every level in America.

The situation is so bad, it is hard to comprehend. Keep in mind, in Illinois, as one example, the average total benefits for government workers — about half of whom retire before age 60 and earned far more than their victims in the private sector — is around $2 million dollars per retiree.

Over one fourth of the state’s budget now goes to pensions. And in some cities such as Peoria, 85 percent of the city’s tax levy goes to fund pensions of government employees, with that number set to rise to 100 percent soon.

Even “low-paid” workers are making a killing off the backs of taxpayers. An average teacher in Illinois who starts at age 22 could retire at age 52 and collect more than $70,000 pension per year. They also get healthcare and other benefits unheard of in the private sector.

Some retirees such as former University of Illinois Professor Leslie Heffez are taking in over $500,000 each year with an estimated total lifetime payout approaching $20 million, government data show.

In Illinois State Senate boss Don Harmon’s request for a federal bailout, he asked Congress for $10 billion in funding for the public pensions — and just $1 billion for poor people’s healthcare.

California has well over 25,000 government retirees bringing in over $100,000 annually in pension benefits, not including healthcare and other benefits.

Even many conservative states and cities have similar numbers. A phone operator in Coral Gables, Florida, for instance, retired in 2008 at about age 50 with a pension of almost $66,000 per year. Now, 12 years later, that has mushroomed into more than $90,000 per year with the automatic 3 percent annual increase.

A retired firefighter in Miami with two government pensions, known as “double dipping,” is bringing home $425,000 annually. “They put a pot of gold in front of me,” he told the Miami Herald. “Why would I turn it down?”

The speed at which this monster grew is breathtaking, too. Many of these pension funds had obligations double, triple, or even quadruple just since the year 2000. And the ballooning fiasco is getting worse, quickly.

The taxpayers who fund this extortion racket, meanwhile, are stuck with the nearly bankrupt Social Security and their devastated 401(k). Average Social Security payments are around $17,000 per year.

While government workers can and often do retire in their early 50s with an enormous, full pension, private sector workers can retire with their measly Social Security payment at 67.

Plus, those private-sector workers are going to be having to pay the government pension monster some big bucks.

In California, according to Stanford, total market pension debts are over $1 trillion — almost $80,000 per household. Illinois has almost $150 billion in unfunded liabilities. Other states such as Alaska, Connecticut, New York, and more are also in similar trouble, along with countless local governments.

One reason for this is that government-sector unions are bursting at the seams with cash. In most states, laws guarantee members and dues for these organizations, ensuring that they have the power to buy politicians — and destroy those who refuse to be bought.

They use these enormous revenues — over $1 billion at the state and federal level — to fund campaigns, political ads, get-out-the-vote schemes, lobbying, and more.

Almost all the beneficiaries of this largess — about 95 percent, to be precise — are Democrats.

Pressure on these politicians from government-sector unions has made the pensions extremely difficult, if not impossible, to push through reforms, even though without reforms, the result will be an economic catastrophe.

Despite the rhetoric coming from Democrat governors and mayors whining about how coronavirus and the recent market meltdown was to blame, this coming tsunami was taking shape for over a decade.

In fact, this writer warned about it in a May 11, 2009, article for The New American magazine headlined Cancerous Growth of Government.

“The cost of public employees is about to sky-rocket as well, in part owing to poor planning by public retirement plans,” reads the article from more than a decade ago before outlining the difference between defined-benefit plans of government workers and defined-contribution plans in the private sector.

Citing an estimate by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the article noted that pension promises made just by state governments would total about $8 trillion by 2024. This would “push many state’s economies into a death spiral,” one expert quoted in the piece explained.

The article also warned that the federal government’s unfunded pension and benefit liabilities at the time were close to $5 trillion.

It was easy to see where this was going to anyone who was paying attention: “State and local governments … will either have to beg the federal government for a bailout, slash spending in other areas, or take the most likely course of action: raise taxes even more,” the piece predicted.

And the cancer goes even deeper than just bankrupting taxpayers and productive citizens.

Another major problem with this absurd scenario that is almost never mentioned is that it allows these government pension funds to bully publicly traded companies into supporting “social justice,” Big Government, and other policies that sensible companies in a free market would never dream of backing.

With trillions in assets under management, these pension funds can make or break companies — and the companies, even the Fortune 500, all know it.

Just this month, a member of Congress revealed that some $50 billion from the U.S. military’s pension fund was being used to fund Communist Chinese state-owned “companies” producing military ships and aircraft for the regime’s “People’s Liberation Army.” Some of those companies are even on the U.S. sanctions list.

“We cannot have the American military who’s out on the frontlines retirement account funding their biggest adversary in the 21st Century,” said Congressman Michael Waltz (R-Fla.), comparing it to funding Soviet industry during the Cold War. “America, we need to wake up.”

Obviously, a bailout for these reckless state and local governments and their bloated pension schemes will not solve the existential problems they pose to America, the free market, and the U.S. taxpayer.

Rather, it will pour billions into Democrat campaign coffers, allow further distortion of the U.S. business sector, and kick the pension can down the road for perhaps another few years at best.

Then America will be right back in this situation again. Worse, it could potentially include a Democrat Congress and White House ready to loot all hard-working Americans to shower endless “free” money on their cronies at the state and local level.

Of course, the Social Security system is a giant Ponzi scheme — and it is almost insolvent. And it’s unconstitutional. It should ultimately be abolished, over the long term, taking care not to harm anyone already dependent on it.

But analysts who have thought about this public-pension nightmare have suggested one solution to the looming crisis that just might work: abolishing the government pension systems and dumping all those trillions — along with all those government workers — into the Social Security system.

It may not be perfect, but it would stop the bleeding, and it would give everyone a powerful incentive to fix the system.

Drastic times call for drastic measures. It is time to deal with the pension crisis, hold Democrat politicians accountable, drastically reduce the size and scope of government, fix the corrupt monetary system, and open the economy back up.

Failing to deal with any of those critical issues may well be the death-knell for America’s constitutional Republic. The time to do it is now.
 

20Gauge

TB Fanatic
The article is totally wrong.

The pensions will fail and then taken over by the feds.

The feds will pay only pennies on the dollar.

What will happen is millions of state employees who believe they have a pension that is locked in, will find they are screwed.
 

Grouchy Granny

Deceased
I'm a retired fed. I spent 32 years paying into the old CSRS (Civil Service Retirement System) at 7.5 percent each payday.

I had the option to switch to the new FERS, but after reading through the literature carefully 4 or 5 times, I did not switch and am glad I didn't. Congress has gutted FERS and they like to dip into the TSP (Thrift Savings Plan) for bailout money.

Of course I had to wait 30 years (minimum time to collect) and be 55 or over to get approximately 70% of my salary. I would have had to stay 40 years to get 80%. Congress wants to gut CSRS as well and I damn well resent it. I worked hard for what benefits I have.

I had money in TSP as well, but after I retired I moved it all into a Morgan Stanley account.

I do feel sorry for the State employees, but they only have the States to blame for their economic woes and unfunded pensions.

And, Feds under CSRS don't get Social Security, unless you have the required 40 quarters (which I did), but you get screwed on that too since they reduce your SS benefits by about 60%.
 

Dozdoats

On TB every waking moment
States cannot "print money." The feral government can. The feral government cannot go broke, by their own MMT definition.

What the "money" the feral government provides will buy, remains to be seen. They cannot print goods and services after all.

But, dead people do not require goods and services, and we are in a transition phase that IMO is aimed at getting a LOT of people dead in the ZUSA. We will see....

Beans'n'bullets, folks..….
 

1-12020

Senior Member
The article is totally wrong.

The pensions will fail and then taken over by the feds.

The feds will pay only pennies on the dollar.

What will happen is millions of state employees who believe they have a pension that is locked in, will find they are screwed.
Oh man I hope your wrong, but I think you are correct.
7 more years to go.
I'm one of those people who got the 3% (not given out anymore) .
I do believe the formula was not wise but it was offered and who wouldn't take it.
 

20Gauge

TB Fanatic
Oh man I hope your wrong, but I think you are correct.
7 more years to go.
I'm one of those people who got the 3% (not given out anymore) .
I do believe the formula was not wise but it was offered and who wouldn't take it.
Not every one will do this, but by far the majority will. They ran them far too lean for too many years.
 

nomifyle

TB Fanatic
When my oldest son went to work for NOPD he proudly told me that after 20 years he could get a pension. I told him not to count on it and he looked at me like I had three heads. He's about 12 years into that 20. He's only 42 so he can still work for a long time. His wife is very good at handling money and is a saver.

Judy
 

blueinterceptor

Veteran Member
How about we honor the pension promises that were made to the American workers that fulfilled their end of the bargain and stop using American tax dollars to buy the votes of minorities by paying benefits to their illegal alien countrymen and educating them for free.
Ca. Doesn’t have money to pay up their pension obligations but want to pay unemployment benefits to the illegal workers that maybe unemployed.
Further we should take a holiday from American economic aid to foreign countries and start building up our own country
 

Dozdoats

On TB every waking moment
How about we honor the pension promises that were made to the American workers that fulfilled their end of the bargain and stop using American tax dollars to buy the votes of minorities by paying benefits to their illegal alien countrymen and educating them for free.

But that's no way to stop destroying a country!
 

Raggedyman

Res ipsa loquitur
When my oldest son went to work for NOPD he proudly told me that after 20 years he could get a pension. I told him not to count on it and he looked at me like I had three heads. He's about 12 years into that 20. He's only 42 so he can still work for a long time. His wife is very good at handling money and is a saver.

Judy

I told my son and SIL - both firefighters in Central FL - the very same things Judy . . . with the same reaction . . . I believe they are beginning to see things a little differently now
 
Last edited:

20Gauge

TB Fanatic
How about we honor the pension promises that were made to the American workers that fulfilled their end of the bargain and stop using American tax dollars to buy the votes of minorities by paying benefits to their illegal alien countrymen and educating them for free.
Ca. Doesn’t have money to pay up their pension obligations but want to pay unemployment benefits to the illegal workers that maybe unemployed.
Further we should take a holiday from American economic aid to foreign countries and start building up our own country
That would help, but the pensions are so far under water it wouldn't solve the problem.
 

Raggedyman

Res ipsa loquitur
this is going to be harsh - but it will also be the TRUTH - so I'll NOT HESITATE to speak it loudly.

some here likely recall that I often discuss my TARD-IN-LAWS . . . the JUDGES . . . absolute ADMIRALS of the liberal feelzies fleet - on steroids. they both just retired. they both never saved a dime - cuz after all - they've got 100% of their pay for the rest of their lives AND COLA - guaranteed - dont'cha know . . . werld travlers - always jetting off here and there - always complaining about over zealous persecution of minorities, about TRUMP and the 2A and all of the GUN NUTS in America. just bought a huge house and all new furniture - and still have their OLD HUGE house - just now on the market.

I can already hear the screaming and crying, the wailing and gnashing of teeth - as the system they literally worshiped bends them over BIGLY.

CRUEL? HARD? HEARTLESS?

I think NOT- more correctly - its graduation day at
HARD KNOCKS U
and they're both summa cum laude candidates

 

packyderms_wife

Neither here nor there.
The article is totally wrong.

The pensions will fail and then taken over by the feds.

The feds will pay only pennies on the dollar.

What will happen is millions of state employees who believe they have a pension that is locked in, will find they are screwed.

OC is a city employee, he drives a mass transit bus, that puts into IPERS and I'm very concerned it won't be there in five years!
 

packyderms_wife

Neither here nor there.
One of the problems with the .gov pension funds, especially CALPers, for decades the fund management decisions have NOT been made on a financial basis but on a political basis, financial ramifications be damned.

Unfortunate but true and it's not just California, many states have done this Illinois being the biggest offender.
 

NoDandy

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Currently listening to Ky Gov Beshear, talking about their budget mess. Saying the Fed Govt HAS to bail out the states.

The Govornors Show is not over, but soon he will be strongly advocating that the state HAS to raise taxes.

BS. The government, Fed, State & Local should do like the citizens do - CUT EXPENSES, starting with poly ticks salaries, and hundreds of other expenses. When citizens come up short, tuff crap. But when government comes up short, they think the citizens have to cough up more. The governments think they should NEVER do without.

THIS LINE OF THINKING HAS TO STOP !!!!

:ld: :mad:
 

Squid

Veteran Member
How about we honor the pension promises that were made to the American workers that fulfilled their end of the bargain and stop using American tax dollars to buy the votes of minorities by paying benefits to their illegal alien countrymen and educating them for free.
Ca. Doesn’t have money to pay up their pension obligations but want to pay unemployment benefits to the illegal workers that maybe unemployed.
Further we should take a holiday from American economic aid to foreign countries and start building up our own country
Honor the pension promises?????

If the states and local governments promise more than they can deliver with golden retirement promises to ‘buy’ votes in the past, do you think they would shaft the ‘new’ future voters or the suckers they bought off 20 years ago?

Those collecting the $150k a year retirement now are in the sweet spot. Retire in 5 with state or local and hope to get 50-60 on the dollar.
 

Sub-Zero

Veteran Member
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is a United States federally chartered corporation which is supposed to bailout pensions if they go tits up. They barely take in more than their operating expenses. Additionally, Obama signed into law the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of (December)2014 (President Obama Signs the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014) which:
  • Permanently extends certain Pension Protection Act (PPA) provisions that were expected to expire at the end of 2014
  • Creates a new funding status labeled “critical and declining status,” and provides plan sponsors of plans in this status with tools to suspend benefits for both actives and retired participants
  • Amends current plan partition rules to permit the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) to approve a partition without a bankruptcy requirement
  • Provides the PBGC with increased authority to facilitate plan mergers, including the statutory authority for the agency to provide financial assistance to do so
  • Increases PBGC premiums from the $12 per capita currently in effect to $26 per capita beginning in calendar year 2015
  • Includes numerous technical corrections and clarifications to the PPA and the Internal Revenue Code.
Thanks, Bams, thanks!

Remember to share this with your friends so they'll know who to thank!
 

Sub-Zero

Veteran Member
I'm a retired fed. I spent 32 years paying into the old CSRS (Civil Service Retirement System) at 7.5 percent each payday.

I had the option to switch to the new FERS, but after reading through the literature carefully 4 or 5 times, I did not switch and am glad I didn't. Congress has gutted FERS and they like to dip into the TSP (Thrift Savings Plan) for bailout money.

Of course I had to wait 30 years (minimum time to collect) and be 55 or over to get approximately 70% of my salary. I would have had to stay 40 years to get 80%. Congress wants to gut CSRS as well and I damn well resent it. I worked hard for what benefits I have.

I had money in TSP as well, but after I retired I moved it all into a Morgan Stanley account.

I do feel sorry for the State employees, but they only have the States to blame for their economic woes and unfunded pensions.

And, Feds under CSRS don't get Social Security, unless you have the required 40 quarters (which I did), but you get screwed on that too since they reduce your SS benefits by about 60%.
Also, I will say that the system outlined by GrouchyGranny is the problem. It's not her fault, but it's still not achievable; I don't know that it ever was.

A promise is a promise, I often hear. My reply is that those things which cannot continue, don't continue.

In what universe does it make sense to anyone that a person retires at age 55 with 70% pay and full benefits AND the possibility of partial Social Security? The unions demanded it and the politicians gave in (as well as benefit from it). The private sector hasn't had that for decades, now. People shouldn't, as a rule, be able to retire and live the next twenty years, on average, on the taxpayers dime. Yes, they contribute to their plans, but not nearly to the extent of their retirement pay. Go ahead and crunch the numbers for yourself.

There aren't any good outcomes for this. The law (see my post, above) allows for the reduction of benefits. That's the likely outcome. The federal government could bail them out, but not without risking strong inflation (which would have the same effect as the first option, except applied to the entire population. If politicians have choice, they're going to chooses offending the least amount of people. And, quite frankly, society has turned on the "Boomers". So, figure out a way to live on less, because in the very near future, you will be living on less either through reduced benefits, or inflation, or both.
 
Last edited:

Doomer Doug

TB Fanatic
Bingo! Now you know ehy the federal reserve just opened up the 500 billion fund for city, county and states to be used to bail out black cities like chicago"s 41 billion etc etc diblasio is blathering about reparations so he will want a slice. This is part con job and part shakedown
 

The Snack Artist

Membership Revoked
I remember as a yout when Bethlehem Steel went under on the east side of Chicongo. They shuttered their plant without much notice. Oh and the pensions? There were none. The fund was insolvent. The WHOLE neighborhood relied on that steel plant for its lifeblood. And then it was gone. Just like life. Fleeting.
 

Coco82919

Veteran Member
I'm a retired fed. I spent 32 years paying into the old CSRS (Civil Service Retirement System) at 7.5 percent each payday.

I had the option to switch to the new FERS, but after reading through the literature carefully 4 or 5 times, I did not switch and am glad I didn't. Congress has gutted FERS and they like to dip into the TSP (Thrift Savings Plan) for bailout money.

Of course I had to wait 30 years (minimum time to collect) and be 55 or over to get approximately 70% of my salary. I would have had to stay 40 years to get 80%. Congress wants to gut CSRS as well and I damn well resent it. I worked hard for what benefits I have.

I had money in TSP as well, but after I retired I moved it all into a Morgan Stanley account.

Wow. I wish. My husband has 30 years with government work. He only will receive 30 percent of his pay when or if he can retire. I always thought since it was a federal retirement that it would be guaranteed when the states pensions went under.
 

Bps1691

Veteran Member
And what do you who have IRA's, 401K's and other self funded retirement funds think is going to happen when the pensions and Social Security go belly up?

Does anyone really think the politico's of that day won't pass new laws to allow them to rob personal funded retirement money as well?

How about property that you've invested in as a retirement hedge when the local and state governments are faced with even less revenue sources?

In states with property tax, you don't really own the property. You are leasing it from the government. They can raise the tax on it when they like and for how ever much they want. Times get bad enough and they'll raise it to the moon.

Things continue to move towards the nexus point where the whole sham collapses on itself, corrupt government tied into corrupt banking and voted into office time after time by an ignorant public. What a receipe for total desaster.
 

Elza

Veteran Member
In what universe does it make sense to anyone that a person retires at age 55 with 70% pay and full benefits AND the possibility of partial Social Security?
1. IF CSRS employees get SS it is virtually nothing.

2. CSRS was completely self funded since its inception in 1936. Tax money did NOT pay for retirement. When the fed.gov did away with it in 1983 the fund had vast amounts of money in it. This is, in point of fact, the reason they did away with it. The thieving politicians wanted the money. The way it was set up they couldn't steal it blind like they do SS so they eliminated it and pocketed the cash.
 

Sub-Zero

Veteran Member
1. IF CSRS employees get SS it is virtually nothing.

2. CSRS was completely self funded since its inception in 1936. Tax money did NOT pay for retirement. When the fed.gov did away with it in 1983 the fund had vast amounts of money in it. This is, in point of fact, the reason they did away with it. The thieving politicians wanted the money. The way it was set up they couldn't steal it blind like they do SS so they eliminated it and pocketed the cash.
Oh noes! Dem guvment types stole da monies? Oh noes!

Does not change any of my talking points at all. It was self funded until guaranteed rates dropped too low. Now it's not feasible or sustainable. You can cry all you want, but it's coming (the reset).

No one should need 70% of their income at retirement; and no one should be guaranteed to retire with full benefits at age 55 unless average life expectancy is 60. The house should be paid off as well as vehicle and there should be no unsecured debt outstanding at all. If there is, your doing it wrong and shouldn't retire until you have your financial ducks in a row.

That's my opinion.

Change my mind.
 

Raggedyman

Res ipsa loquitur
"No one should need 70% of their income at retirement; and no one should be guaranteed to retire with full benefits at age 55 unless average life expectancy is 60. The house should be paid off as well as vehicle and there should be no unsecured debt outstanding at all. If there is, your doing it wrong and shouldn't retire until you have your financial ducks in a row.

That's my opinion.

Change my mind."
Sub-Zero

:applaud: :applaud: :applaud: :applaud: :applaud: :applaud:

well spoken !!!!!


live within your harvest

debt IS NOT wealth
save for tomorrow
pay your bills


each and every one of us that was self employed did it that way
THEN
we retired

see post #13 - I believe it paints the picture quite well



 
Last edited:

MinnesotaSmith

Membership Revoked
How about we honor the pension promises that were made to the American workers that fulfilled their end of the bargain

Ok. Let the politicians who made those promises (invariably made rich if they stay in office long enough) be sent the pension fees, and write all the checks for them from their personal bank accounts. I never made those promises, and never would have done so.
 

Dozdoats

On TB every waking moment
When I came into federal civil service, opting into CSRS opted you out of social security. If you wanted SS you signed up for FERS.

How long would you have to work to attain this wondrous 70% pension under CSRS?

As a CSRS-covered employee, you can retire at any time after you reach age 55 and have 30 years of service. If you retired with exactly 30 years of service, your annuity would equal 56.25 percent of your high-3. If you worked for 41 years and 11 months, your earned annuity would reach the maximum amount permitted by law: 80 percent of your high-3. Note: Since unused sick leave is added to actual service, your annuity could be higher.

-- CSRS retirement at 40 years
 

blueinterceptor

Veteran Member
Ok. Let the politicians who made those promises (invariably made rich if they stay in office long enough) be sent the pension fees, and write all the checks for them from their personal bank accounts. I never made those promises, and never would have done so.

Politicians are elected by the people. The politicians did the bidding of the people. Pensions are not unconstitutional and are a contract between the workers and their employers. In this case the various govts.
There are no constitutional provisions for economic aid to unlawful entrants to this country. Who shouldn’t be here anyway. Further there is no provisions to bribe voters by using tax dollars to keep politicians employed.
Social security is the same. Laws were passed and money to pay those obligations were collected. They are not entitlements.
 

Sub-Zero

Veteran Member
Politicians are elected by the people. The politicians did the bidding of the people. Pensions are not unconstitutional and are a contract between the workers and their employers. In this case the various govts.
There are no constitutional provisions for economic aid to unlawful entrants to this country. Who shouldn’t be here anyway. Further there is no provisions to bribe voters by using tax dollars to keep politicians employed.
Social security is the same. Laws were passed and money to pay those obligations were collected. They are not entitlements.
Read my post regarding the change in pension guarantees signed into law by Bams. That is also constitutional. Your pension can stop for a time, and be reduced. That is constitutional. Is it fair? No. Does that matter? No. The law has been changed and if you have a pension it will likely decrease.

Wisconsin, for example, has one of the best funded state pensions. And, the payout is based on fund performance (annual assessment).

On the flip side, Illinois and California have some of the worst funded pensions due to state funding and over promising.

It is what it is.

Change my mind.
 

lonestar09

Veteran Member
How about we honor the pension promises that were made to the American workers that fulfilled their end of the bargain and stop using American tax dollars to buy the votes of minorities by paying benefits to their illegal alien countrymen and educating them for free.
Ca. Doesn’t have money to pay up their pension obligations but want to pay unemployment benefits to the illegal workers that maybe unemployed.
Further we should take a holiday from American economic aid to foreign countries and start building up our own country
Probably will not happen, but it would be nice
 

lonestar09

Veteran Member
Currently listening to Ky Gov Beshear, talking about their budget mess. Saying the Fed Govt HAS to bail out the states.

The Govornors Show is not over, but soon he will be strongly advocating that the state HAS to raise taxes.

BS. The government, Fed, State & Local should do like the citizens do - CUT EXPENSES, starting with poly ticks salaries, and hundreds of other expenses. When citizens come up short, tuff crap. But when government comes up short, they think the citizens have to cough up more. The governments think they should NEVER do without.

THIS LINE OF THINKING HAS TO STOP !!!!

:ld: :mad:
Probably won't happen. Seen too much waste over the years and don't see it stopping any time soon. Until the people finally get fed up and do something about it.
 

Ravekid

Veteran Member
How about we honor the pension promises that were made to the American workers that fulfilled their end of the bargain and stop using American tax dollars to buy the votes of minorities by paying benefits to their illegal alien countrymen and educating them for free. Ca. Doesn’t have money to pay up their pension obligations but want to pay unemployment benefits to the illegal workers that maybe unemployed. Further we should take a holiday from American economic aid to foreign countries and start building up our own country

Politicians are elected by the people. The politicians did the bidding of the people. Pensions are not unconstitutional and are a contract between the workers and their employers. In this case the various govts.
There are no constitutional provisions for economic aid to unlawful entrants to this country. Who shouldn’t be here anyway. Further there is no provisions to bribe voters by using tax dollars to keep politicians employed.
Social security is the same. Laws were passed and money to pay those obligations were collected. They are not entitlements.

It is a two way street blueinterceptor. The unions, left leaning organizations for the most part, fund the politicians, many times Democrat party members. That party has an ideology that supports the things you complain about. Don't vote Democrat, don't get an amazing pension. You have to take the good with the bad. The problem with politicians, both parties now, is that they want to completely ignore mathematics when it comes to debt and spending. Any promises made that defy the laws of mathematics, or requires oppressive taxation, is in fact an entitlement and to me unconstitutional. When such legislation it is used to gain votes, in an effort to obtain power in the political arena, I find that unconstitutional.

Pensions were never made to make people rich, but some people, in some states, are becoming very wealthy in retirement. That has to stop. The entire concept of a pension and social security was to provide an income to people to have reasonable shelter, the ability to upkeep that shelter (power, gas, basic maintenance, property taxes---though some states give breaks to seniors), provide for a reasonable vehicle to go and obtain food. Instead, politicians purchased votes with promises of making the benefits so grand, that people could take international vacations, buy second homes, not have to down size their life, etc. etc..

It is all unsustainable. The only reason our debt load works is because we have used our military to control the world and every other country out there has done the same thing in terms of using debt and spending more than they really have. Now that other countries are growing, or forming pacts like the EU, this threatens the US dollar.

Maybe if we stop with all the foreign aid, cut military spending, etc. we could afford the current promises. However, a line in the sand needs to be drawn to where no pension benefit is over say $50K/year, possibly adjusted for the cost-of-living. And new hires should get paid more than current workers, but they should be put into 401(k) type plans. Life time payout plans are no longer viable when the term could be thirty years for most.

And what do you who have IRA's, 401K's and other self funded retirement funds think is going to happen when the pensions and Social Security go belly up?

Does anyone really think the politico's of that day won't pass new laws to allow them to rob personal funded retirement money as well?

I have a state pension. Right now, I have to wait till sixty to obtain a payout. If I work till fifty five, I can get it then. I've ran the numbers. The calculation for Indiana's pension for state workers and teachers is simple: (Average of highest five years of W-2 wages) x (Years of service-2080 hours=one year) x (1.1%). Tennessee has an almost identical formula, but I think they pay 1.5%. Our judges, prosecutors, state police, other police/LE, and local LE all have their own plans with very different calculation (higher payouts). State and teacher plans pay into social security and thus we get full SS. I know local police/fire don't pay SS, so all they have is their pension.

The entire system will be affected, but people making huge five figure payouts, and sometimes even six figure payouts, for life, isn't sustainable. Pensions should've never been tied to wages, their payouts should've been much lower in many states.

Those telling relatives who have a pension to save additional money, keep on them. Make sure they Google what San Diego is trying to do, as well as Central Falls, Rhode Island.

Pension reform is coming. If people aren't planning now, they should be. I predict most judges will calculate a x cents on the dollar amount, using brackets of payouts. The higher the payout, the higher the cut.
 

hiwall

Has No Life - Lives on TB
I have a distant relative who is a retired California firefighter. I do not know what he gets but it is well over $100k. He spends all of it on trips around the world. I told him once to live it up now while he is still getting the money. We talked breifly about under-funded pensions. He said all of his pension money was saved just for him and could never be reduced or taken away. I just said 'good luck with that'.
 

Ravekid

Veteran Member
I have a distant relative who is a retired California firefighter. I do not know what he gets but it is well over $100k. He spends all of it on trips around the world. I told him once to live it up now while he is still getting the money. We talked breifly about under-funded pensions. He said all of his pension money was saved just for him and could never be reduced or taken away. I just said 'good luck with that'.

I worked with a guy who was from S. CA. One of his relatives was a high ranking LEO of a large CA municipality. He said this relative was also making $100K, but was well aware that it was always a target for serious reduction. Those who were smart moved away from the cost-of-living out there. I know a lot of LAPD officers are said to have retired to N. Idaho and similar areas. There have been numerous statements made over the years that these folks figure it is only a matter of time when the major cities collapse into serious civil unrest, so many of them sold their homes for a good profit, bank their pension while they can, and live life in more secure small city/town type areas.

My life turned out pretty good for the most part, but I do sometimes wonder "What if..?" Back when I was around 20/21, we had members of S. CA law enforcement, Las Vegas PD come and speak to our criminal justice class. If I would've went, I'd likely be vested with just at twenty years on (might need another five). However, the fear now would be if I couldn't collect till fifty-something, I'm not sure I'd actually get what they'd promise right now. One benefit about having a mediocre pension is that it is less likely to be slashed.
 

Grouchy Granny

Deceased
Wow. I wish. My husband has 30 years with government work. He only will receive 30 percent of his pay when or if he can retire. I always thought since it was a federal retirement that it would be guaranteed when the states pensions went under.

He must be under FERS then - that was a massive ripoff in my humble opinion. That's why I didn't switch and they were really pressuring those of us under CSRS to do so.

None of my friends switched either and we are all so glad we didn't. During one of the retirement classes they told us the CSRS was really considered a "Cadillac" plan compared to FERS which would be a "volkswagon."

The CSRS was based on years worked, plus the highest grade achieved. I managed to luck out and over the years (started as a GS-3 clerk typist) worked my way up the ladder (and not horizontally either) to a GS-14. Of course it took me 30 years to get a decent grade! The higher the grade, the more money you contributed.
 
Top