http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-gain-support/

It just isn't feasible for the long term. Lets ask some other logical folks...

In Massachusetts last year, Gov. Deval Patrick has signed a pension bill that raised the minimum retirement age to 60, from 55. His newer effort aims to stop public workers from getting unemployment money while they’re getting pension payments.

In Rhode Island, Gov. Lincoln Chafee, who has already signed a pension reform bill into law, is seeking to let cities cut benefits to retired public workers. He’s drawn opposition from unions that have said they’d fight the proposal in court if necessary, while mayors have said the measure would alleviate budget pressures.

And in New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo has tried to cut budgets by raising the retirement age for most government workers to 65 from 62, and lower the amount of money given to workers after retirement to 50 percent of their salary, from 60 percent. The left-leaning minds on the New York Times editorial board wrote that “those changes make sense.”

Way to rent a seat for 6 months while the legislature doesn't meet again until Jan 2013. That win if it holds up means absolutely nothing, but again why worry about the facts.

BTW- did you see Barrett get slapped after he gave his concession speech?

Death threats, etc. Once again the liberals are showing there true colors. Check out what is on twitter.

One final thing "THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!!!!"

More than half of them did opt out in WI once they were given the choice

OOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! :tro:

not enough of a change in my opinion. those numbers ignore completely the fact that we live longer and longer....many pensions are still set at ages from decades ago, when most people didn't live to age 65. ss for instance. now, most people live to their 80's, and we've got more people attaining age 100 than ever.
it is unsustainable to have someone spend as much time in retirement as they did working.
it's not a matter of right and wrong, or fairness...it's simple math!

It depends upon who has been guarding the pension money. Has it been safely held, accumulating interest over time, the principle intact, as it should have been?

Or have politicians scavenged it? Are they trying to scavenge it now, to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy?

It's easy to cut budgets on the backs of your neighbors. Especially when you are taught to demonize them and call them "union thugs".

Because if you don't do that, if you are not set on to attack each other, those neighbors may get together and wonder why, if we are so "broke", the wealthy are getting more and more tax cuts, and they get insulted when we question why "the job creators" can't pay a penny more, but a retired teacher has to have their pension cut in half?

Yes, good point! :D The facts are that Walker was planning on calling a "special session" of the Senate this summer and pass the mining bill (a gift to his crony donor) and now, with the GOP having lost the Senate, he can't do that.

The facts are that Walker was also planning to call a "special session" of the Senate this summer, and make Wisconsin a "right to work for less" state - and he can't do that, either.

Yes, indeed. No more Scott Walker shoving ALEC agenda items through in the middle of the night :tro:

Walker is done. His power is gone, stripped by democracy: the successful Senate recalls. All Walker has left is waiting for the FBI indictments to come down on his head.

Don't mistake opting out of union membership with trying to increase the bottom line of one's paycheck after Walker has stripped your raises out of it.

Let's see ... that retirement money was always supposed to be in safe investments, untouchable.

Instead, politicians have taken money out of pension funds (against laws) to put against their budget deficits.

Politicians have stripped the "safe investments" from the pension funds and put it into private 401K's, etc, causing loss of funds.

And now, that the politicians have stolen from the pension funds, the politicians are blaming the pensioners for living too long, for getting "too good a deal", but being greedy about the agreement they worked their life under.

Yeah, blame the pensioners.

Funny thing: good pension funds, like those set up by my father for police/firemen/Illinois municipal employees in the 1960', 1970's - that have been managed correctly, and kept out of the hands of politicians - are flush and fully capable of paying their current and future obligations. How about that?

It's precisely like Social Security. We could dare to ask those well-off Americans that make over $250,000 a year to pay additional Social Security taxes on their income above $103,600, but only up to $250,000 (because everybody who makes less than $103,600 is already paying social security taxes on 100% of their income).

Or, we could scream that Social Security recipients are freeloaders off the government teat, and deserve - no, NEED - to have their benefits cut in half due to future program shortages, or they need to work years longer, how dare they retire at 65! We're broke, dammit! They all have to sacrifice and give up retirement benefits!

Because that's better than the wealthy being "forced" to "pay for the poor" by paying a couple thousand dollars more a year. It's so unfair to them! The poor are who need to pay more, or sacrifice more. Society isn't "equal". The rich don't have to pay equally as the little folk do.

This is America - if you are poor, you pay 100% for your retirement, and you suffer if there isn't enough money to go around. If you are rich, don't worry, the politicians you own have looked out for your interests: you only pay a little of your income towards a retirement you don't need financed by a safety net anyway, and you do not have to sacrifice if there is a shortage.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul has never worked either. Money is neither made nor lost it is just pushed from place to place.
Show me the bill proposing tax cuts for the wealthy where it is written that they will be paid for by pension funds. No such thing exists, sheep.

Not even close to enough, just pointing out that Democratic leaders are doing EXACTLY the same kinds of things in other states and not getting an ounce of flak here.

:zz: The Walker Budget. The Ryan Budget.

yeah, but they're democrats. of course they won't get flak.

quote the bill, not what the shepherds have fed you. ACTUAL quotes from either document.

Assertions with no proof are dismissed.

This is the part where you tell me to do my own homework to prove your point right?

Glad to see after 3 and a half years of Hope and Change this has been reversed...oh wai







































thud

Well, go ahead and name them. They should get flak, too.

No, this is the part where you were supposed to have paid attention during the Walker budget, during the past year, and notice that the tax cuts he gave were funded by cutting the pensions of the public unions. You know, the part that was all over the news and caused the recalls :zz:

"Quote the part" ?? - yeah - the whole budget. The parts that are all over the news.

Well, yes, let's look at who has voted for what in the past three and a half years :D







































thud

see above.

Quotes from the "news" will be fine too, I am sure they have direct quotes from the budgets for you to believe what they are feeding you as opposed to opinion and rhetoric.