|
|
|
|
| [VN
Boards Archive] |
Welcome to the Vault Network
forum archive.
This is not a complete archive, time didn't allot us the
opportunity to properly backup the majority of the boards
deemed "expendable". Most boards on this list have at least
20-40 pages archived (non-logged in pages, 15 topics per
page).
Popular boards may have as many as 250 pages archived at 50
topics per page, while others deemed of historical
signifigance may be archived in their entirety.
We may not agree with how the board shutdown was managed, but
we've done what we could to preserve some of its history in
lieu of that.
Please enjoy the archive.
~
Managers, Moderators, VIP's, and regular posters.
|
| Author |
Topic: The Dems are trying to recall the Michigan Governor
|
Moe_Nox
Title: In Moe We Trust
Posts:
22,319
Registered:
Feb 4, '07
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 19,181
User ID: 1,203,840
|
Subject:
The Dems are trying to recall the Michigan Governor
|
Can the crybaby sissypants in both parties please stop trying to win an election years after you have lost it?
Recall efforts are becoming practically as commonplace as general elections.
Any chance that you partisan asshats can just man up and accept not winning every election?
Thanks.
Sincerely,
your betters
-----signature-----
The Nanny State cometh Currency should be bacon cheeseburgers and blow jobs... - Reese Life at the Outpost: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1771556
|
|
Link to this post
|
-Espiritu-
Posts:
10,404
Registered:
Nov 29, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 9,216
User ID: 999,377
|
Subject:
The Dems are trying to recall the Michigan Governor
|
Only 16 times in the last 150 years has someone been recalled but won re-election. It happened 7 times in Wisconsin alone last year. Two recalls were successful. The crime that caused all these recall elections? Taking away the ability of public workers to negotiate fringe benefits.
-----signature-----
Espiritu - SWTOR (retired)
Espiritu (MajorMUD, UO, DAoC, SB, FFXI, WoW, WAR, Travian, SC2, SWTOR)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Ashmaele
Title: Pastor of Muppets
Posts:
19,662
Registered:
Jan 15, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,903
User ID: 612,352
|
Subject:
The Dems are trying to recall the Michigan Governor
|
|
Why not work to get the recall statute changed or eliminated instead of being a crybaby sissypants when people use it?
-----signature-----
I had a dream. It was an incredible dream. When I awoke, I had a huge mess to clean up. 
|
|
Link to this post
|
theredkay1
Posts:
6,731
Registered:
May 16, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 6,729
User ID: 1,297,378
|
Subject:
The Dems are trying to recall the Michigan Governor
|
|
The ability to negotiate with those you are contracting with seems important. Freedom to negotiate contracts is one of the most important fundamentals for economic advancement. Losing this ability is something that will upset people.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Sansfear
Posts:
7,232
Registered:
Aug 31, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 7,182
User ID: 1,318,423
|
Subject:
The Dems are trying to recall the Michigan Governor
|
theredkay1 posted:
The ability to negotiate with those you are contracting with seems important. Freedom to negotiate contracts is one of the most important fundamentals for economic advancement. Losing this ability is something that will upset people.
Except, in the case of government workers, the people they are negotiating with a) are also government workers, b) don't have to pay for the increased costs, c) benefit politically from giving the workers what they want.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
-Espiritu-
Posts:
10,404
Registered:
Nov 29, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 9,216
User ID: 999,377
|
Subject:
The Dems are trying to recall the Michigan Governor
|
the other crime committed by these elected officials was overturning the "mandatory enrollment/fair share payment" law that allowed labor unions to collect dues from people who didn't want to be in the public union.
I'm sure in this regard, freedom isn't quite as important to you theredgay1. Freedom is only important when allowing public unions to effectively double their tax-payer funded compensation through fringe benefits. It was all fine and good until they put the state on the brink of bankruptcy.
-----signature-----
Espiritu - SWTOR (retired)
Espiritu (MajorMUD, UO, DAoC, SB, FFXI, WoW, WAR, Travian, SC2, SWTOR)
|
|
Link to this post
|
theredkay1
Posts:
6,731
Registered:
May 16, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 6,729
User ID: 1,297,378
|
Subject:
The Dems are trying to recall the Michigan Governor
|
Sansfear posted:
theredkay1 posted:
The ability to negotiate with those you are contracting with seems important. Freedom to negotiate contracts is one of the most important fundamentals for economic advancement. Losing this ability is something that will upset people.
Except, in the case of government workers, the people they are negotiating with a) are also government workers, b) don't have to pay for the increased costs, c) benefit politically from giving the workers what they want.
So are you saying that nobody should be able to negotiate with the government? Or just workers should not be able to negotiate?
a) doesnt make sense as just about every employee negotiates pay with someone who works for the same company. So we can throw that one out.
b) almost every publicly traded company is in this same situation. The cost of contractual agreements do not come out of the pockets of managers at any company. Shareholders, like taxpayers, have to ultimately be responsible for the people they elect to do the job of setting and executing budgets. Do we take away the negotiating rights of every corporation? Or can we admit you didnt think about this one either and throw it out?
c) Benefit how? By being voted back into office? Are politicians supposed to do things that the voting public dislikes? If voters dont like the higher costs, there is no political benefit is there?
I dont think you thought any of this through. Next time you should question your talking points before you repeat them.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
theredkay1
Posts:
6,731
Registered:
May 16, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 6,729
User ID: 1,297,378
|
Subject:
The Dems are trying to recall the Michigan Governor
|
-Espiritu- posted:
the other crime committed by these elected officials was overturning the "mandatory enrollment/fair share payment" law that allowed labor unions to collect dues from people who didn't want to be in the public union.
If they didnt want to be enrolled in a union, why did they take that job? Were they forced to take that job and forced to pay for union representation they didnt want?
If people dont like the union representation, they should avoid going to work for a union. The union will shrink, lose market power and fade away.
The freedom you are talking about is the 'freedom' for people to get the benefit of representation without paying the cost of that representation. Thats not actually a freedom. Just like it isnt a freedom to be able to walk into a store and take the things you want while refusing to pay the cost.
What this law does is require those who pay for union representation to also pay for representation of other employees who do not wish to pay for that representation. To go back to our store example, customers who wish to pay the cost of the product are now required to pay the cost those people who are now taking things off the shelf and refusing to pay.
This is not something that people would usually describe as freedom. The government is restricting the ability of these workers to create a contract amongst themselves. You champion this in the name of 'freedom' because you dont understand what freedom means.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
The Dems are trying to recall the Michigan Governor
|
theredkay1 posted:
Sansfear posted:
theredkay1 posted:
The ability to negotiate with those you are contracting with seems important. Freedom to negotiate contracts is one of the most important fundamentals for economic advancement. Losing this ability is something that will upset people.
Except, in the case of government workers, the people they are negotiating with a) are also government workers, b) don't have to pay for the increased costs, c) benefit politically from giving the workers what they want.
So are you saying that nobody should be able to negotiate with the government? Or just workers should not be able to negotiate?
a) doesnt make sense as just about every employee negotiates pay with someone who works for the same company. So we can throw that one out.
b) almost every publicly traded company is in this same situation. The cost of contractual agreements do not come out of the pockets of managers at any company. Shareholders, like taxpayers, have to ultimately be responsible for the people they elect to do the job of setting and executing budgets. Do we take away the negotiating rights of every corporation? Or can we admit you didnt think about this one either and throw it out?
c) Benefit how? By being voted back into office? Are politicians supposed to do things that the voting public dislikes? If voters dont like the higher costs, there is no political benefit is there?
I dont think you thought any of this through. Next time you should question your talking points before you repeat them.
Pwnd.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Fist_de_Yuma
Posts:
24,444
Registered:
Dec 20, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 21,971
User ID: 566,471
|
Subject:
The Dems are trying to recall the Michigan Governor
|
theredkay1 posted:
Sansfear posted:
theredkay1 posted:
The ability to negotiate with those you are contracting with seems important. Freedom to negotiate contracts is one of the most important fundamentals for economic advancement. Losing this ability is something that will upset people.
Except, in the case of government workers, the people they are negotiating with a) are also government workers, b) don't have to pay for the increased costs, c) benefit politically from giving the workers what they want.
So are you saying that nobody should be able to negotiate with the government? Or just workers should not be able to negotiate?
a) doesnt make sense as just about every employee negotiates pay with someone who works for the same company. So we can throw that one out.
b) almost every publicly traded company is in this same situation. The cost of contractual agreements do not come out of the pockets of managers at any company. Shareholders, like taxpayers, have to ultimately be responsible for the people they elect to do the job of setting and executing budgets. Do we take away the negotiating rights of every corporation? Or can we admit you didnt think about this one either and throw it out?
c) Benefit how? By being voted back into office? Are politicians supposed to do things that the voting public dislikes? If voters dont like the higher costs, there is no political benefit is there?
I dont think you thought any of this through. Next time you should question your talking points before you repeat them.
The problem is the political power of the Unions gained through forced dues. They can put a lot of money into a small district. They don't have to do it in many because just the threat is enough.
Even FDR understood the danger of public sector unions. The politician doesn’t have to worry about making money. A business will go bust if they pay too much for labor. With "benefits" a politician can tell the public that they held the line on pay, while giving the workers a big expensive benefit, that will not come due until after the politician retires.
The choice is to give and go broke or hold the line and face recall. The problem is that the good politicians are the ones being hammered with lies and slander. Few have the momey to fight the Unions head up. If the public gets fooled with this then you will never see another politican willing to take the risk. The states will go broke, one by one.
-----signature-----
There are three kind of liberals;
Stupid, ignorant or evil
The result is always evil but the intent is not always evil. Not that it makes much difference in the long run.
No one here is exactly as they seem. - G'Kar
|
|
Link to this post
|
Ptilk
Title: Creepy old pirate
Posts:
50,658
Registered:
Feb 13, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 48,530
User ID: 645,124
|
Subject:
The Dems are trying to recall the Michigan Governor
|
Recalls seldom work.
If they do...then they are working as planned. If they don't....they are working as planned.
See no reason to get upset about it.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Ashmaele
Title: Pastor of Muppets
Posts:
19,662
Registered:
Jan 15, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,903
User ID: 612,352
|
Subject:
The Dems are trying to recall the Michigan Governor
|
Sansfear posted:
theredkay1 posted:
The ability to negotiate with those you are contracting with seems important. Freedom to negotiate contracts is one of the most important fundamentals for economic advancement. Losing this ability is something that will upset people.
Except, in the case of government workers, the people they are negotiating with a) are also government workers, b) don't have to pay for the increased costs, c) benefit politically from giving the workers what they want.
A and B in your example also apply to the private sector (granted, I realize that you would like to end all collective bargaining, but the "distinctions" you noted are not really distinctions at all.
As for C, can you quantify this or give examples of how they have "benefitted politically?" I'm not saying you're wrong, I just do not have enough evidence to know that you are right at this point.
-----signature-----
I had a dream. It was an incredible dream. When I awoke, I had a huge mess to clean up.
|
|
Link to this post
|
AzureTyger
Title: Awesome
Posts:
29,693
Registered:
Apr 1, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 26,594
User ID: 663,926
|
Subject:
The Dems are trying to recall the Michigan Governor
|
theredkay1 posted:
Sansfear posted:
theredkay1 posted:
The ability to negotiate with those you are contracting with seems important. Freedom to negotiate contracts is one of the most important fundamentals for economic advancement. Losing this ability is something that will upset people.
Except, in the case of government workers, the people they are negotiating with a) are also government workers, b) don't have to pay for the increased costs, c) benefit politically from giving the workers what they want.
So are you saying that nobody should be able to negotiate with the government? Or just workers should not be able to negotiate?
a) doesnt make sense as just about every employee negotiates pay with someone who works for the same company. So we can throw that one out.
b) almost every publicly traded company is in this same situation. The cost of contractual agreements do not come out of the pockets of managers at any company. Shareholders, like taxpayers, have to ultimately be responsible for the people they elect to do the job of setting and executing budgets. Do we take away the negotiating rights of every corporation? Or can we admit you didnt think about this one either and throw it out?
c) Benefit how? By being voted back into office? Are politicians supposed to do things that the voting public dislikes? If voters dont like the higher costs, there is no political benefit is there?
I dont think you thought any of this through. Next time you should question your talking points before you repeat them.
Wow, takedown.
-----signature-----
Using the mirror of ridicule to force conservatives to
confront their own stupidity.
|
|
Link to this post
|
theredkay1
Posts:
6,731
Registered:
May 16, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 6,729
User ID: 1,297,378
|
Subject:
The Dems are trying to recall the Michigan Governor
|
Fist_de_Yuma posted:
The problem is the political power of the Unions gained through forced dues.
Who is being forced? How are the being forced? What is the enforcement mechanism?
I think this is another term that will try to turn the meaning of 'forced' on its head.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
-Espiritu-
Posts:
10,404
Registered:
Nov 29, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 9,216
User ID: 999,377
|
Subject:
The Dems are trying to recall the Michigan Governor
|
theredkay1 posted:
If they didnt want to be enrolled in a union, why did they take that job? Were they forced to take that job and forced to pay for union representation they didnt want?
If people dont like the union representation, they should avoid going to work for a union. The union will shrink, lose market power and fade away.
If people dont like the healthcare or retirement benefits offered by the municipality/school district, they should avoid going to work for them.
theredkay1 posted:
The freedom you are talking about is the 'freedom' for people to get the benefit of representation without paying the cost of that representation. Thats not actually a freedom. Just like it isnt a freedom to be able to walk into a store and take the things you want while refusing to pay the cost.
What about when the union doesn't provide a benefit? What about when the union refuses to poll its members on key decisions? What about when the union refuses to allow lazy and ineffective members to be fired, and instead allows hard working overachievers to get fired just because they have less seniority. What about a teachers union that sets up their own health insurance company, and then refuses to negotiate contracts with schools that don't include coverage from their own health insurance company? What about when that teacher's union run health insurance company charges 30-40% more than competitors, and then funnels that profit back into their political organization which acts independently of any input from members?
It truly was the perfect scam. I have to give them credit. If they hadn't gone too far and nearly bankrupted the state, a guy like Scott Walker never would have won the Governor's seat.
theredkay1 posted:
What this law does is require those who pay for union representation to also pay for representation of other employees who do not wish to pay for that representation. To go back to our store example, customers who wish to pay the cost of the product are now required to pay the cost those people who are now taking things off the shelf and refusing to pay.
This law allows teachers to choose whether they give a portion of their hard earned salary to an organization that may or may not represent them as employees, and only represents them politically if they are progressive Democrats. When this law was passed we were told that the teacher’s unions wouldn’t even notice because their members would write the check each month. It took less than six months for unions to start sending out goons to try and prevent the mass exodus. If the union truly represented its membership, why would so many people leave? Your point relies on the idea that the union only acts as a positive to the membership, and that the membership would not opt to contract directly with the employer if given a choice. Fact is the union prevents any non-union people from getting employment as part of their bargaining.
theredkay1 posted:
This is not something that people would usually describe as freedom. The government is restricting the ability of these workers to create a contract amongst themselves. You champion this in the name of 'freedom' because you dont understand what freedom means.
You’re a f***ing moron. This is not about contracts between workers and their employers; this is about contracts between workers and the government itself. Private unions were not included in any of these changes, just the public unions. The employer in this scenario is the taxpayer, and for thirty years we’ve had absolutely no say in these negotiations. We do now.
States are broke. Crooked politicians and over-zealous public unions put us in this position. The teacher’s unions in this country are the biggest target. For years they argued that their power was needed because “it’s for the childrenâ€. They don’t even pretend any more. In Wisconsin they abandoned their kids, and classrooms, to protest for their own pocketbooks. This is of course their only true motivation.
Note: not all teachers, some went to their classrooms
Note: mostly just terrible teachers went to the protests, the ones who are just collecting a pay check any way
-----signature-----
Espiritu - SWTOR (retired)
Espiritu (MajorMUD, UO, DAoC, SB, FFXI, WoW, WAR, Travian, SC2, SWTOR)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Sansfear
Posts:
7,232
Registered:
Aug 31, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 7,182
User ID: 1,318,423
|
Subject:
The Dems are trying to recall the Michigan Governor
|
theredkay1 posted:
Sansfear posted:
theredkay1 posted:
The ability to negotiate with those you are contracting with seems important. Freedom to negotiate contracts is one of the most important fundamentals for economic advancement. Losing this ability is something that will upset people.
Except, in the case of government workers, the people they are negotiating with a) are also government workers, b) don't have to pay for the increased costs, c) benefit politically from giving the workers what they want.
So are you saying that nobody should be able to negotiate with the government? Or just workers should not be able to negotiate?
a) doesnt make sense as just about every employee negotiates pay with someone who works for the same company. So we can throw that one out.
b) almost every publicly traded company is in this same situation. The cost of contractual agreements do not come out of the pockets of managers at any company. Shareholders, like taxpayers, have to ultimately be responsible for the people they elect to do the job of setting and executing budgets. Do we take away the negotiating rights of every corporation? Or can we admit you didnt think about this one either and throw it out?
c) Benefit how? By being voted back into office? Are politicians supposed to do things that the voting public dislikes? If voters dont like the higher costs, there is no political benefit is there?
I dont think you thought any of this through. Next time you should question your talking points before you repeat them.
You can't throw a) out at all.
When employees negotiate pay with their managers, the manager represents the best interests of the business. If they make a bad decision, not only will they face termination but they will have put their company in a disadvantaged competitive position and potentially force their own company out of business.
Government has no competition to put them out of business for bad labor decisions and they can simply raise taxes/fees/fines in order to cover the costs of the new contract. Government managers do not have to have the best interest of the government at mind when they negotiate and they do not face the same threat of termination if they screw up. The result is an extremely one-sided negotiation since management doesn't have the same incentive to hold the financial line against the demands of the employees.
b) I could have worded better, but the gist is the same as before. They aren't at risk of losing their job (either through incompetence in negotiations or through the company going out of business) if they give away the farm to the union.
c) Unions provide an unduly emphasized support of political campaigns due to their organization and financing. 10K union members will have more political clout than 50K of the voting public (though this is as much the voting public's fault as anyone's). The current situation in Michigan is a great example as the recall efforts are being driven by a very small percentage of the voting public.
This is especially true for government unions who have an even larger incentive to keep someone in office who has just given them a great deal. And in the elective process, they can do just that by voting en masse (and organizing to get others to vote for their candidate) to get them reelected. In private companies, the union members don't elect the managers.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
-Espiritu-
Posts:
10,404
Registered:
Nov 29, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 9,216
User ID: 999,377
|
Subject:
The Dems are trying to recall the Michigan Governor
|
Nothing shows how true a) is than when the Milwaukee Area Technical College union was able to renogiate their new contract on the eve of the Scott Walker changes to collective bargaining. Why would the government employees, who represent the taxpayers, renew a contract the night before they would be able to renew a contract at significant savings to the taxpayers?
That question was answered by how the teachers themselves, and the board members of MATC hugged and clutched each other after the vote. Two of the board members are actually teachers themselves in different districts. This reciprocity worked well... up until the point they bankrupted the state.
-----signature-----
Espiritu - SWTOR (retired)
Espiritu (MajorMUD, UO, DAoC, SB, FFXI, WoW, WAR, Travian, SC2, SWTOR)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Ashmaele
Title: Pastor of Muppets
Posts:
19,662
Registered:
Jan 15, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,903
User ID: 612,352
|
Subject:
The Dems are trying to recall the Michigan Governor
|
|
Lots of envy itt
-----signature-----
I had a dream. It was an incredible dream. When I awoke, I had a huge mess to clean up.
|
|
Link to this post
|
Bjorvald
Posts:
9,251
Registered:
Apr 5, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 8,849
User ID: 665,468
|
Subject:
The Dems are trying to recall the Michigan Governor
|
-Espiritu- posted:
Why would the government employees, who represent the taxpayers, renew a contract the night before they would be able to renew a contract at significant savings to the taxpayers?
There's an old expression about what happens when you let the fox guard the henhouse...
-----signature-----
Bjorvald 9lx healer
Blinknone, various toons on classic
GANKED AGAIN
|
|
Link to this post
|
Remnant_OBrien
Posts:
14,440
Registered:
May 11, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 13,108
User ID: 801,003
|
Subject:
The Dems are trying to recall the Michigan Governor
|
Sansfear posted:
Government can simply raise taxes/fees/fines in order to cover the costs of the new contract. Government managers do not have to have the best interest of the government at mind when they negotiate and they do not face the same threat of termination if they screw up.
You really have no idea what you're talking about.
-----signature-----
The People's Intern
"If I had a plan to kill liberals the liberals would not know about it. Until it is too late of course. I have no such plan, sleep well, sleep deeply." -Fisted
LOTRO: Windfola - Telpehta
|
|
Link to this post
|
theredkay1
Posts:
6,731
Registered:
May 16, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 6,729
User ID: 1,297,378
|
Subject:
The Dems are trying to recall the Michigan Governor
|
Sansfear posted:
When employees negotiate pay with their managers, the manager represents the best interests of the business. If they make a bad decision, not only will they face termination but they will have put their company in a disadvantaged competitive position and potentially force their own company out of business.
Government has no competition to put them out of business for bad labor decisions and they can simply raise taxes/fees/fines in order to cover the costs of the new contract. Government managers do not have to have the best interest of the government at mind when they negotiate and they do not face the same threat of termination if they screw up. The result is an extremely one-sided negotiation since management doesn't have the same incentive to hold the financial line against the demands of the employees.
b) I could have worded better, but the gist is the same as before. They aren't at risk of losing their job (either through incompetence in negotiations or through the company going out of business) if they give away the farm to the union.
Your solution doesnt fix any of this. It doesnt even address the problems you identify.
You have identified a potential problem, managers may overpay their workers. Your solution is to interfere with workers ability to freely contract and negotiate while avoiding the potential problem of managers mismanaging government staffs.
Again, you appear to have not thought through any of this.
The problems that you identify also manifest themselves with regards to other government contracts, that being private companies that supply goods and services to the government. Are you calling for legal action that stops private business from freely contracting and negotiating if they have interactions with the government? If you are concerned with the issues you raise, you should be calling for that as well.
But you dont seem to actually be concerned with your issue.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
theredkay1
Posts:
6,731
Registered:
May 16, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 6,729
User ID: 1,297,378
|
Subject:
The Dems are trying to recall the Michigan Governor
|
-Espiritu- posted:
[
States are broke. Crooked politicians and over-zealous public unions put us in this position. The teacher’s unions in this country are the biggest target.
States are broke due to the lowest tax burden in recent history + rising health care costs + the biggest economic collapse in 70 years.
You are ignoring the 3 causes of state budget problems. You are a moron.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Groucho48
Posts:
11,206
Registered:
Oct 22, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 11,136
User ID: 847,611
|
Subject:
The Dems are trying to recall the Michigan Governor
|
So, let's look at the last decade.
For much of it, pension funds were getting a pretty good return on investment, so, government entities cut back their funding and spent the money on other stuff. Then, returns tanked and government entities said...OMG! Our pensions don't have enough in them to pay pensions over the next 75 years unless we make up the amounts we didn't put in, therefore, we have to eviscerate them.
Oh, and, in the meantime, we are going to cut corporate taxes and to cover the huge deficits, we are going to lay off public employees.
Yeah, the unions have the government wrapped around their fingers.
-----signature-----
“Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it.†– Richard Feynman
|
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
The Dems are trying to recall the Michigan Governor
|
|
To be fair, pension plans were always ridiculously optimistic. Most American local governments budget based on a 7-8% yearly return. That is simply absurd. 5% is far more realistic, and results in needing to put in about twice as much money over 30 years to make the same returns.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
|
|
| © 2012. All
Rights Reserved. |
|
|
|
|
