Wisconsin Recall

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

They can just like everyone else. By contributing to their retirement like everyone else. Pensions are not reasonable for public companies and are definitely not reasonable for public employees. My father has been paid almost 2x what he made during his 25 years as a police officer since retiring.

Should your father's income be suddenly cut in half now, after he's retired? Should the contract he worked under be altered after the fact? After he's retired? Because that's what you are supporting. Not changing the contract for the future retirees - but changing it for people that have already retired.

And is your father a violent, evil union thug? Because that's what you call him.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Should your father's income be suddenly cut in half now, after he's retired? Should the contract he worked under be altered after the fact? After he's retired? Because that's what you are supporting. Not changing the contract for the future retirees - but changing it for people that have already retired.

And is your father a violent, evil union thug? Because that's what you call him.

He and the other PBA members were known for their harsh negotiation tactics. If there is no money then there is no money. Most people understand that.
My parents taught me growing up that money didn't grow on trees. A good portion of the liberal population of this country never learned that lesson. Math is math and it cannot be changed.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

He and the other PBA members were known for their harsh negotiation tactics. If there is no money then there is no money. Most people understand that.
My parents taught me growing up that money didn't grow on trees. A good portion of the liberal population of this country never learned that lesson. Math is math and it cannot be changed.

But there is money. It's in your father's pension fund. It was contributed by him, and matched by the city, during his working life, it accumulated interest, and now it is to pay him what was promised him, for his lifetime of work.

I'll not allow someone to demonize your father, call him a freeloader and a union thug and a cheat living off the public teat, because some politician wants to steal his hard-earned pension to give tax cuts to his rich friends.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

But there is money. It's in your father's pension fund. It was contributed by him, and matched by the city, during his working life, it accumulated interest, and now it is to pay him what was promised him, for his lifetime of work.

I'll not allow someone to demonize your father, call him a freeloader and a union thug and a cheat living off the public teat, because some politician wants to steal his hard-earned pension to give tax cuts to his rich friends.

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.”

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

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.”

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!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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!

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.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

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







































thud

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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!

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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

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.

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

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

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.

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

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

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

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?

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

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?

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

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.

The Walker Budget. The Ryan Budget.