GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-05-2013, 08:22   #26
jpa
CLM Number 268
Charter Lifetime Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Las Vegas NV
Posts: 10,117
Send a message via AIM to jpa Send a message via Yahoo to jpa
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
I'm intentionally being dense on this because it wasn't a valid analogy and I was using "density" to illustrate that. Instead of picking the above excerpt apart, lets just let it go and address the meat of the issue:



No. They don't. I wish they did but they don't. If they did have such a duty they most certainly would have been jailed for creating most of these public pensions in the first place because by creating them they would have been in violation of it.

Furthermore, if they had a fiduciary duty at the present they would likely be in violation of it for allowing the pension funds to continue, and for most public employee union contracts.

A fiduciary duty is a legal obligation:



The people who manage the funds within the pension plans DO have a fiduciary duty.



Well, it isn't. I agree. However, your point is based on a fallacy. There is no debt if the legislators legislate it away.

In other words, taxpayer funds in public pensions are only guaranteed so far as the last law written to protect them. It is taxpayer money. The lawmakers can simply pass a law and re-allocate it. The taxpayers have a right to have their interests represented. If they, via their legislators, decide to remove taxpayer money, stop depositing taxpayer money or dissolve the pension (assuming not contractually bound), they have a right to do that and can do it.

I'm not passing judgement on it one way or another. I'm just saying they can.

However, current taxpayers/current legislatures cannot be bound by previous legistures. In other words, just because some legislature 30 years ago promised you a pension package, the current legislature can change that obligation and they should be able to. The current taxpayers were not represented by the previous legislature.

Truth be told, this is generally the biggest problem with public union contracts and public pension systems. Some politician years ago made an agreement to spend some other person's money in the future for their own political benefit today.



Sure they can walk away from it. Courts may or may not rule against them. If they so choose, they can amend their respective constitution. Nothing with the government is iron-clad, and it shouldn't be. That's my basic point.

Remember that though we put judges in black robes and call them "your honor", they're still just lawyers and most of them are political hacks or politicians themselves. It is what it is.



I don't. Government has proven it is untrustworthy. It has proven it does not have a fiduciary duty or even a "fiduciary mindset". I truly feel sorry for honest hardworking NECESSARY government employees who are put in this compromising postion. The good news for you folks is that in reality, not paying you would be political suicide in MOST cases. However, as the fiscal crises grow public opinion seems to be changing a bit as well and should the taxpayers send politicians to the state house with a mandate to relieve them of pension obligations, rest assured it will happen. I think it is highly unlikely though because the government pretty much has a monopoly on force and will bring as much pressure to bear on the taxpayers to force them to pay in order to protect their political status.



I do too, if possible. But I don't believe I should have to bail it out at any cost, as a taxpayer. You have to be conscious of the possibility that it may not be feasible at some point. No matter the reason or the malfeasance involved, there is a limit, unless the federal government starts bailing them out with printed money. Even still, there is a limit, you just might realize that limit slowly.



I would vote for that in a heartbeat and put public employees on a 401k type plan with very conservative taxpayer contributions/matches, like the productive sector has.

I suspect that can't happen because it is mathematically impossible and would trigger collapse in any number of areas. So to that extent, we're all in it together.
I see where the disconnect is. Your jaded and cynical view of government is shading your view of government pensions. Since you don't expect the government to act with a fiduciary responsibility, you assume that they are all completely reckless and irresponsible with tax revenue. Even in light of information to the contrary and evidence showing that a pension system is completely sustainable you argue that "I don't get a pension so neither should you." Then you defend their years of failing to meet their obligations set by law when the system was established by saying they aren't obligated to honor commitments made by prior legislatures. If they have the opportunity to amend the law and fail to do so, doesn't that constitute a tacit acceptance of the obligation to follow that law?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SunsetMan View Post
Do you have proof the CALPERS money was not put into the plan? My roommate says all the money was only used for CALPERS.

I had a discussion with him that his pension could become insolvent if California became bankrupt, that promises were made that CA maybe could not keep. He was fairly convinced that was impossible.
The problem is the cities and counties (employers) who didn't pay their contributions to the system that they were required to pay on behalf of their employees.

As an example, I work for the state of Nevada. With every pay check, I contribute 12.25% of my salary to PERS. In turn, my employer also is required to contribute the same for a total contribution of 24.5% of my salary. That money is meant to be invested and through the power of compounding the returns, will eventually be enough to pay me a pension as well as pay other expenses related to managing the pension system. When the state budgets for each position, they plan for this expense based on the salary set for the position.

The problem comes in when employers fail to plan for their expected contribution and spend that money elsewhere. The whole pension system suffers because that money doesn't have a chance to "grow" as an investment because it doesn't get invested when it should.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SunsetMan View Post
This is where I see the big problem if say a 7% rate of return is what was planned for. I don't think my roomy expects the tax payers to make up any difference in rate of return, but I'm assuming CalPERS has been supplemented out of the general fund. I have nothing to back that up though. Research on that has turned up nothing.

I think government pensions should operate like private 401k's where you get back what you have put in plus actual interest on holdings.
I think government pensions would be just fine if the elected officials would stop stealing from them.
__________________
Big Dawg #1408, TT #1408
Moto Club #1408, GSSF Member, NRA RSO
NRA Benefactor Member
jpa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 08:28   #27
G36's Rule
Senior Member
 
G36's Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Spring, TX.
Posts: 14,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr981 View Post
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...roup-says.html

Moody's has it at about $2 trillion; the report states that the average pension is 41% funded--Yipes!

Apparently, one of the major culprits was the optimistic expected return on the pension fund investments--typically pegged at 8%. CALPERS earned just 1% in the past year indicating how far off even the major pension funds can be.

Naturally, the tax payers will have to make up the difference.
Oh no, that can't be...

We've been told time and time again on this site that these pension funds, CALPERS in particular, are fully funded and will never use taxpayers dollars!

G36's Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 08:31   #28
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,311
No problem here that minting five of those trillion dollar coins won't solve.
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.
series1811 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 08:51   #29
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,725


Quote:
Originally Posted by jpa View Post
I see where the disconnect is. Your jaded and cynical view of government is shading your view of government pensions.
No. Math shaded my view of government pensions. There is no disconnect there. The point of the article is that they are trillions of dollars in the hole.

Quote:
Since you don't expect the government to act with a fiduciary responsibility, you assume that they are all completely reckless and irresponsible with tax revenue.
First of all, you need to understand that government does not have a fiduciary duty. I already explained that.

Secondly, they are all completely reckless and irresponsible with tax revenue. Would you really like me to gather evidence to support that assertion? Will take about 2 minutes.

No government employee or politician gives a dollar of tax revenue the same regard that the citizen who originally earned it did. Never will.

Quote:
Even in light of information to the contrary and evidence showing that a pension system is completely sustainable you argue that "I don't get a pension so neither should you."
It is only sustainable if the government bails it out (generally speaking). They will do so by extracting yet more money from the taxpayers who did not agree to this.

What I see here is arrogance. I'm one of the people paying for these pensions but I just need to STFU and pay, right?

Quote:
Then you defend their years of failing to meet their obligations set by law when the system was established by saying they aren't obligated to honor commitments made by prior legislatures.
I defended nothing. I explained to you and 2bgop explained to you that one legislature cannot be bound by another. This is a basic constitutional principle and it should be.

Other than your personal greed, can you explain why one citizen should be bound by the commitments of a legislature decades before he was even alive?

Let me explain something else to you. When you do business with the government, you might be awarded a 10 year contract. However, that contract always carries in a a clause that says it can be cancelled if the legislature does not appropriate the money for it, each year. This is how it works.

I get it. You want your pension. You don't care if it isn't sustainable and the taxpayers will have to pay more. You trusted the government and believed the lies.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 09:01   #30
Patchman
Florist
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Land of Flora, Fauna & Merriweather
Posts: 11,559
Pensions sustain itself by making the principle earn interests, which is used to pay for the pension. And there is a formula (basically based on age of entering pension, and expected years to retirement) that determine each member's required contribution (let's call that the "principle.")

So, ideally, the pension fund should receive $X in principle each year (for each member that's 20 to 30 years before needing it). But if politicians go to the pension fund and removes (say) 25- to 30-percent of the principle, writes an IOU, but when the IOU is due, the politician at the time says... "sorry, it was my predecessor, and in any case, we have no money to repay you..." what do you think will happen?

The "borrowed" principle loses several years/decades of interest (due to being unable to be invested and interests re-invested).
__________________
Sounds like he has nothing left but be a monkey's uncle. It's not like he's got a monkey's manhood left.

And thank YOU for being perfect, all the time, every time. Go forth and reproduce. We need more of you.
Patchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 09:15   #31
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,725


Quote:
Originally Posted by Patchman View Post
Pensions sustain itself by making the principle earn interests, which is used to pay for the pension. And there is a formula (basically based on age of entering pension, and expected years to retirement) that determine each member's required contribution (let's call that the "principle.")

So, ideally, the pension fund should receive $X in principle each year (for each member that's 20 to 30 years before needing it). But if politicians go to the pension fund and removes (say) 25- to 30-percent of the principle, writes an IOU, but when the IOU is due, the politician at the time says... "sorry, it was my predecessor, and in any case, we have no money to repay you..." what do you think will happen?

The "borrowed" principle loses several years/decades of interest (due to being unable to be invested and interests re-invested).
While I don't think that is responsible behavior, if it is taxpayer money they are removing, it is within their legal purview and it should be.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 09:26   #32
Patchman
Florist
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Land of Flora, Fauna & Merriweather
Posts: 11,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunsetMan View Post
I think government pensions should operate like private 401k's where you get back what you have put in plus actual interest on holdings.
In some ways, a 401K is better than a pension because when you die unexpectly, the entire 401K goes to your estate. With a pension, if I die (say) one year after retirement, guess where all my unused contribution goes? (hint: not to my estate).

A 401K type plan is fine if all new employees are told this is what's going to happen. And of course, current salaries would have to be increased to match private industry's.

For someone who started 30-40 years ago, the pension was part of the employment package they agreed to. They also agreed to take a lower salary than employees in private industries, with the understanding that the pension is part of the "overall" compensation package.

Where I'm at, we contribute 7.5-percent of gross salary into my own pension, year after year, until retirement. So it's not true that we get a free pension.
__________________
Sounds like he has nothing left but be a monkey's uncle. It's not like he's got a monkey's manhood left.

And thank YOU for being perfect, all the time, every time. Go forth and reproduce. We need more of you.
Patchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 09:29   #33
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,725


Quote:
Originally Posted by Patchman View Post

For someone who started 30-40 years ago, the pension was part of the employment package they agreed to. They also agreed to take a lower salary than employees in private industries, with the understanding that the pension is part of the "overall" compensation package.
Yes. But taxpayers today should not be obligated to follow the commitments made by representatives 40 years ago when they were not represented.

Last edited by certifiedfunds; 01-05-2013 at 09:29..
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 09:32   #34
Patchman
Florist
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Land of Flora, Fauna & Merriweather
Posts: 11,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
While I don't think that is responsible behavior, if it is taxpayer money they are removing, it is within their legal purview and it should be.

As a matter of fact, in NJ, the courts deemed it legal.

The point is, you can't remove a large chunk of $$$ that was earmarked for one thing (and where interest earnings are important), hand out IOUs as a future promise to repay, then 10 or 15 years later when the IOU comes due, the current politician says "sorry... no money."

And then wonder why there isn't enough money in that earmarked fund.
__________________
Sounds like he has nothing left but be a monkey's uncle. It's not like he's got a monkey's manhood left.

And thank YOU for being perfect, all the time, every time. Go forth and reproduce. We need more of you.
Patchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 09:39   #35
devildog2067
Senior Member
 
devildog2067's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Near Chicago, IL
Posts: 15,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patchman View Post
And of course, current salaries would have to be increased to match private industry's.
"Of course"? That's BS. Lots of problems with that assumption.

1) This would only be true if the government were unable to attract qualified candidates at the current salary levels. For many positions, the waiting lists are years long. Salaries need to be reduced, not increased, in many cases.

2) How can you say that salaries should "match" private industry? Many government jobs have no private industry counterpart. If a job can be performed by someone in private industry, it probably shouldn't be a government job.
devildog2067 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 09:40   #36
devildog2067
Senior Member
 
devildog2067's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Near Chicago, IL
Posts: 15,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpa View Post
I think government pensions would be just fine if the elected officials would stop stealing from them.
And if pigs had wings they would fly.
devildog2067 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 09:43   #37
devildog2067
Senior Member
 
devildog2067's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Near Chicago, IL
Posts: 15,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patchman View Post
For someone who started 30-40 years ago, the pension was part of the employment package they agreed to. They also agreed to take a lower salary than employees in private industries, with the understanding that the pension is part of the "overall" compensation package.
Lots of people started at Enron 40 years ago, and did 30 years of faithful work and retired with a full pension. Defined-benefit pensions were common in private industry at the time; in fact that's why government had to start offering them--to be competitive. (Your idea that the pension is something that the government had to start offering pensions to increase the "overall" compensation package is false.)

Then Enron went under. Those people lost their pensions. They don't get them any longer, except for a token amount from the PBGC. Through no fault of their own, they got screwed.

Why is it that those people lost their pensions, but you think that government employees should get to keep theirs?
devildog2067 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 09:44   #38
Patchman
Florist
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Land of Flora, Fauna & Merriweather
Posts: 11,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Yes. But taxpayers today should not be obligated to follow the commitments made by representatives 40 years ago when they were not represented.
Oh believe me, I've often wished gov't agencies would just say, "we're not enforcing such and such laws/regulations unless the current (politicians) specifically enact laws requiring us to do so. Laws/regulations passed by past administrations have no binding effect on us today."
__________________
Sounds like he has nothing left but be a monkey's uncle. It's not like he's got a monkey's manhood left.

And thank YOU for being perfect, all the time, every time. Go forth and reproduce. We need more of you.
Patchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 09:45   #39
devildog2067
Senior Member
 
devildog2067's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Near Chicago, IL
Posts: 15,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patchman View Post
In some ways, a 401K is better than a pension
In every way, a defined-contribution plan is better than a pension. For everyone involved.

Quote:
Where I'm at, we contribute 7.5-percent of gross salary into my own pension, year after year, until retirement. So it's not true that we get a free pension.
You expect to get a defined amount, regardless of what happened to your 7.5-percent contribution. That's illogical and irrational.
devildog2067 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 09:53   #40
Patchman
Florist
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Land of Flora, Fauna & Merriweather
Posts: 11,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by devildog2067 View Post
Lots of people started at Enron 40 years ago, and did 30 years of faithful work and retired with a full pension. Defined-benefit pensions were common in private industry at the time; in fact that's why government had to start offering them--to be competitive. (Your idea that the pension is something that the government had to start offering pensions to increase the "overall" compensation package is false.)

Then Enron went under. Those people lost their pensions. They don't get them any longer, except for a token amount from the PBGC. Through no fault of their own, they got screwed.

Why is it that those people lost their pensions, but you think that government employees should get to keep theirs?
If you're going to compare Enron (or other private companies) to governments, let's not forget that
Enron did very well for itself when it was soaring. Many of their employees got great bonus packages annually.
__________________
Sounds like he has nothing left but be a monkey's uncle. It's not like he's got a monkey's manhood left.

And thank YOU for being perfect, all the time, every time. Go forth and reproduce. We need more of you.
Patchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 09:56   #41
2bgop
Senior Member
 
2bgop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: In the SEC
Posts: 5,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patchman View Post
Oh believe me, I've often wished gov't agencies would just say, "we're not enforcing such and such laws/regulations unless the current (politicians) specifically enact laws requiring us to do so. Laws/regulations passed by past administrations have no binding effect on us today."
No past legislature can compel a future state legislature to appropriate funds. I see it happen all the time, some company has a contract with a state, you get a change in the approps chairs or the governor and contract is just not funded.
2bgop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 09:58   #42
CAcop
Senior Member
 
CAcop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California
Posts: 21,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunsetMan View Post
This is where I see the big problem if say a 7% rate of return is what was planned for. I don't think my roomy expects the tax payers to make up any difference in rate of return, but I'm assuming CalPERS has been supplemented out of the general fund. I have nothing to back that up though. Research on that has turned up nothing.

I think government pensions should operate like private 401k's where you get back what you have put in plus actual interest on holdings.
CalPERS "supplements" by having either employers or employees kick down more money. Right now me and the city are paying in at about a 60/40 ratio of about 30-40% of my base pay.

If there is no money coming in there will be no money going out for that government entity. They don't care how you do it but they want their money or you set up your own pension plan. Good luck with that. See Orange County for a nightmare. Oh, and San Jose is about to join them in hell.
__________________
I wonder if your assessment of "The Wizard of Oz" would sound something like "A teenaged orphan runs away with three psychotic AD/HD patients and a little dog. She kills the first two women she meets." --Sinecure 07/03/2006
Freakin' awsome!! Kickin it old school. Hot sheet on the dash. The report was probably only two sentences. Long live Rencko and Bobbie Hill!--WhiskeyT
CAcop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 10:00   #43
CAcop
Senior Member
 
CAcop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California
Posts: 21,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by G36's Rule View Post
Oh no, that can't be...

We've been told time and time again on this site that these pension funds, CALPERS in particular, are fully funded and will never use taxpayers dollars!

I have never said they don't use taxpayer money. Anything from government is going to cost money therefore taxes must be raised.
__________________
I wonder if your assessment of "The Wizard of Oz" would sound something like "A teenaged orphan runs away with three psychotic AD/HD patients and a little dog. She kills the first two women she meets." --Sinecure 07/03/2006
Freakin' awsome!! Kickin it old school. Hot sheet on the dash. The report was probably only two sentences. Long live Rencko and Bobbie Hill!--WhiskeyT
CAcop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 10:03   #44
Patchman
Florist
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Land of Flora, Fauna & Merriweather
Posts: 11,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by devildog2067 View Post
You expect to get a defined amount, regardless of what happened to your 7.5-percent contribution. That's illogical and irrational.
Defined amount is actually a falsity that many don't understand. Pensions promise X-years of service and will get Y-percent of salary. That's not the case. What you actually get is based on how much $principle you have in your pension account.

In the course of your career, you can borrow from your pension contribution, such as to purchase a house or for some medical emergencies. You may or may not be required to pay back-depends on pension. Which means, at the end of your work life, your pension principle may be short of what you're suppose to have. You actual pension amount is calculated on how much principle you have in your account. For us, the pension deducts about $110 for each $1000 that you're short on your principle.

Pension payout is based on actureal lifes. But let's also not forget that with pensions, if you die prematurely, your pension stops.
__________________
Sounds like he has nothing left but be a monkey's uncle. It's not like he's got a monkey's manhood left.

And thank YOU for being perfect, all the time, every time. Go forth and reproduce. We need more of you.
Patchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 10:04   #45
CAcop
Senior Member
 
CAcop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California
Posts: 21,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patchman View Post
In some ways, a 401K is better than a pension because when you die unexpectly, the entire 401K goes to your estate. With a pension, if I die (say) one year after retirement, guess where all my unused contribution goes? (hint: not to my estate).

A 401K type plan is fine if all new employees are told this is what's going to happen. And of course, current salaries would have to be increased to match private industry's.

For someone who started 30-40 years ago, the pension was part of the employment package they agreed to. They also agreed to take a lower salary than employees in private industries, with the understanding that the pension is part of the "overall" compensation package.

Where I'm at, we contribute 7.5-percent of gross salary into my own pension, year after year, until retirement. So it's not true that we get a free pension.
Good point in order for my pension to go to my wife upon my death I will have to give up a HUGE chunk of change to do it.

I've run the numbers. Even with the large cost of setting up whole life at 50 when I retire it will be better than doing the survivor's benefit.
__________________
I wonder if your assessment of "The Wizard of Oz" would sound something like "A teenaged orphan runs away with three psychotic AD/HD patients and a little dog. She kills the first two women she meets." --Sinecure 07/03/2006
Freakin' awsome!! Kickin it old school. Hot sheet on the dash. The report was probably only two sentences. Long live Rencko and Bobbie Hill!--WhiskeyT
CAcop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 10:08   #46
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,725


Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
CalPERS "supplements" by having either employers or employees kick down more money. Right now me and the city are paying in at about a 60/40 ratio of about 30-40% of my base pay.

If there is no money coming in there will be no money going out for that government entity. They don't care how you do it but they want their money or you set up your own pension plan. Good luck with that. See Orange County for a nightmare. Oh, and San Jose is about to join them in hell.
Calpers contributes 40%?
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 10:09   #47
CAcop
Senior Member
 
CAcop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California
Posts: 21,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Yes. But taxpayers today should not be obligated to follow the commitments made by representatives 40 years ago when they were not represented.
If you do that to public employees (already found illegal in the 1940s in CA) then anyone is next.

Too expensive to maintain sewer? **** you, you're cut off. Go septic.

Too expensive to maintain water service? **** you, you're cut off. Drill a well. No water under your property? Better hope your neighbor does or you are **** out of luck.

There is a long list of **** yous the governement can do to you. You just don't have the integrity to admit you suck off the teat too.
__________________
I wonder if your assessment of "The Wizard of Oz" would sound something like "A teenaged orphan runs away with three psychotic AD/HD patients and a little dog. She kills the first two women she meets." --Sinecure 07/03/2006
Freakin' awsome!! Kickin it old school. Hot sheet on the dash. The report was probably only two sentences. Long live Rencko and Bobbie Hill!--WhiskeyT
CAcop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 10:14   #48
CAcop
Senior Member
 
CAcop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California
Posts: 21,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by devildog2067 View Post
Lots of people started at Enron 40 years ago, and did 30 years of faithful work and retired with a full pension. Defined-benefit pensions were common in private industry at the time; in fact that's why government had to start offering them--to be competitive. (Your idea that the pension is something that the government had to start offering pensions to increase the "overall" compensation package is false.)

Then Enron went under. Those people lost their pensions. They don't get them any longer, except for a token amount from the PBGC. Through no fault of their own, they got screwed.

Why is it that those people lost their pensions, but you think that government employees should get to keep theirs?
Eron went out of business. The City of Stockton is still open for business.

With a woefully understaffed police department by the way. The only place bleeding more officers is San Jose.
__________________
I wonder if your assessment of "The Wizard of Oz" would sound something like "A teenaged orphan runs away with three psychotic AD/HD patients and a little dog. She kills the first two women she meets." --Sinecure 07/03/2006
Freakin' awsome!! Kickin it old school. Hot sheet on the dash. The report was probably only two sentences. Long live Rencko and Bobbie Hill!--WhiskeyT
CAcop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 10:16   #49
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,725


Stockton is not a business
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 10:18   #50
2bgop
Senior Member
 
2bgop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: In the SEC
Posts: 5,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
If you do that to public employees (already found illegal in the 1940s in CA) then anyone is next.

Too expensive to maintain sewer? **** you, you're cut off. Go septic.

Too expensive to maintain water service? **** you, you're cut off. Drill a well. No water under your property? Better hope your neighbor does or you are **** out of luck.

There is a long list of **** yous the governement can do to you. You just don't have the integrity to admit you suck off the teat too.
This is a little off topic, but that is going to happen in some major city in the country in the not too distant future. One of the things I do is help municipalities reach settlement agreements with state and federal agencies.

The EPA is leveeing fines for sewer and wastewater violations that cities simply can not comply with. A couple large midwestern cities are facing fines so large that it would constitute well over a 400% increase in sewer and water fees on residents.
2bgop is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 22:28.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,140
344 Members
796 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42