Republicans' Next Move: Get Rid of Pensions Altogether???

Schadenfreude said:
seems that power corrupts union management as much as ceos and cfos
Click to expand...

Precisely. That is a fact all too often ignored by those on the left (such as Dune, who neg rep'd your post because he doesn't like the truth), just as many on the right overlook corporate corruption...
 
Voltaire said:
Pensions are unsustainable and should be replaced with 401k/403b plans. If people are too dumb to save for their own retirement, they deserve to eat Alpo.

Who actually believes their pension is secure anyway? My dad is a union member and in every issue of their publication, there's a list of union officials who are being prosecuted for embezzling pension funds.
Click to expand...

Compare the list of union embezzling to the S&L scandal, Enron, the Wall St. and mortgage banking chicanery....and yet I don't see the people screaming for the deconstruction of unions doing the same for the institutions and situations I just mentioned.

Once again:

Union pensions are DEFERRED PAYMENTS. The State only gets involved when they screw up the investments or siphon off funds for other fiscal situations.

Collective bargaining by unions has always supported the State through tough fiscal times. Case in point, the Wisconsin unions AGREED to the increased payments to their benefits and pensions. Historically, the unions bailed out New York during the Ford Administration.

Unions and collective bargaining DID NOT create the fiscal mess the country is currently in, which lessened federal funding to the States. They were NOT responsible for the S&L scandal, Enron, or the Wall St./mortgage banking debacle.

Since unions are a prime backer/campaigner for the Dem party, weakening if not dismantling them via punitive financial moves by GOP politicos points to upcoming elections.

In Wisconsin, the Koch brothers industries would benefit from non-union input regarding their 17 business there, and would also benefit from Walker selling of public utilities to private industries.

At first, Walker and the Wisconsin GOP stated that banning collective bargaining on pensions and benefits was crucial to the budget. Then, they remove this aspect from the fiscal bill in order to repeal a 50 year old Wisconsin law to this effect. So by their own convoluted logic, the Wisconsin Gop inadvertently admit that eliminating collective bargaining had NOTHING to do with balancing the budget.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Compare the list of union embezzling to the S&L scandal, Enron, the Wall St. and mortgage banking chicanery....and yet I don't see the people screaming for the deconstruction of unions doing the same for the institutions and situations I just mentioned.

Once again:

Union pensions are DEFERRED PAYMENTS. The State only gets involved when they screw up the investments or siphon off funds for other fiscal situations.

Collective bargaining by unions has always supported the State through tough fiscal times. Case in point, the Wisconsin unions AGREED to the increased payments to their benefits and pensions. Historically, the unions bailed out New York during the Ford Administration.

Unions and collective bargaining DID NOT create the fiscal mess the country is currently in, which lessened federal funding to the States. They were NOT responsible for the S&L scandal, Enron, or the Wall St./mortgage banking debacle.

Since unions are a prime backer/campaigner for the Dem party, weakening if not dismantling them via punitive financial moves by GOP politicos points to upcoming elections.

In Wisconsin, the Koch brothers industries would benefit from non-union input regarding their 17 business there, and would also benefit from Walker selling of public utilities to private industries.

At first, Walker and the Wisconsin GOP stated that banning collective bargaining on pensions and benefits was crucial to the budget. Then, they remove this aspect from the fiscal bill in order to repeal a 50 year old Wisconsin law to this effect. So by their own convoluted logic, the Wisconsin Gop inadvertently admit that eliminating collective bargaining had NOTHING to do with balancing the budget.
Click to expand...

Lying liars
 
Rana said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Compare the list of union embezzling to the S&L scandal, Enron, the Wall St. and mortgage banking chicanery....and yet I don't see the people screaming for the deconstruction of unions doing the same for the institutions and situations I just mentioned.

Once again:

Union pensions are DEFERRED PAYMENTS. The State only gets involved when they screw up the investments or siphon off funds for other fiscal situations.

Collective bargaining by unions has always supported the State through tough fiscal times. Case in point, the Wisconsin unions AGREED to the increased payments to their benefits and pensions. Historically, the unions bailed out New York during the Ford Administration.

Unions and collective bargaining DID NOT create the fiscal mess the country is currently in, which lessened federal funding to the States. They were NOT responsible for the S&L scandal, Enron, or the Wall St./mortgage banking debacle.

Since unions are a prime backer/campaigner for the Dem party, weakening if not dismantling them via punitive financial moves by GOP politicos points to upcoming elections.

In Wisconsin, the Koch brothers industries would benefit from non-union input regarding their 17 business there, and would also benefit from Walker selling of public utilities to private industries.

At first, Walker and the Wisconsin GOP stated that banning collective bargaining on pensions and benefits was crucial to the budget. Then, they remove this aspect from the fiscal bill in order to repeal a 50 year old Wisconsin law to this effect. So by their own convoluted logic, the Wisconsin Gop inadvertently admit that eliminating collective bargaining had NOTHING to do with balancing the budget.
Click to expand...


Lying liars
Click to expand...


What disturbs me more is not so much the criminal activity of the GOP and their corporate cronies, but the people who ardently support thes criminals DESPITE the fact that they are victims....and then they blame the people who expose the hypocrisy and heinous actions of the GOP and their corporate cronies. :palm:
 
Voltaire said:
Pensions are unsustainable and should be replaced with 401k/403b plans. If people are too dumb to save for their own retirement, they deserve to eat Alpo.

Who actually believes their pension is secure anyway? My dad is a union member and in every issue of their publication, there's a list of union officials who are being prosecuted for embezzling pension funds.
Click to expand...

My grandfather was a typist for the Seattle Times. His union, the Int. Typographical Union (ITU) went bankrupt in the early 80s and lost his pension. He was picked up by Communication Workers of America (CWA) on a 10 year plan, and had to work until he was 75. The pension was lame, and he lucked out by having invested heavily in Microsoft and some other good stocks.

However, when pensions are guaranteed by a stable business or the freaking government itself, I think most people feel a bit secure.
 
Threedee said:
My grandfather was a typist for the Seattle Times. His union, the Int. Typographical Union (ITU) went bankrupt in the early 80s and lost his pension. He was picked up by Communication Workers of America (CWA) on a 10 year plan, and had to work until he was 75. The pension was lame, and he lucked out by having invested heavily in Microsoft and some other good stocks.

However, when pensions are guaranteed by a stable business or the freaking government itself, I think most people feel a bit secure.
Click to expand...

It is now a false sense of security. Bud and I are delaying our retirement for another five years because we don't want to count on SS!
 
Threedee said:
My grandfather was a typist for the Seattle Times. His union, the Int. Typographical Union (ITU) went bankrupt in the early 80s and lost his pension. He was picked up by Communication Workers of America (CWA) on a 10 year plan, and had to work until he was 75. The pension was lame, and he lucked out by having invested heavily in Microsoft and some other good stocks.

However, when pensions are guaranteed by a stable business or the freaking government itself, I think most people feel a bit secure.
Click to expand...

But what is a stable business now may not be in 25 or 30 years.
 
WinterBorn said:
But what is a stable business now may not be in 25 or 30 years.
Click to expand...

Very true. Recently the Seattle PI, the oldest newspaper, went out of print. The ITU had been the oldest labour union, and back in he 50s, it was both old and seemingly strong and solvent. Hell, I was a WaMu customer, and now its dead and buried, and my accounts have been assumed by Chase.
 
Ice Dancer said:
The fact that the term "rights" have been attributed to union "powers" must be what is contributing to your hysteria...

Union powers have been curbed in order to allow Wisconsin to keep it's spending under control...a responsibility that the leaders of that states government must take seriously. No ones salaries have been cut- no ones been fired-something that WOULD have happened had the bill not been passed...
Click to expand...

From what I've read their salaries have been cut. They have to contribute more towards their medical and pensions which is equivalent to an 8% decrease in take-home pay.
 
Dixie said:
Ludicrous? It is now "ludicrous" for me to believe it is crazy to pay public servants MORE for their pensions than I provide for myself? In what fucking universe is this ludicrous? Because, to me, it is ludicrous that we are now paying public servants considerably MORE than the private sector across the board, in pay, in benefits, in holidays and sick leave, in health care, and in pensions. It's even more ludicrous that we've established a system by which they can get automatic increases in all these areas, each year, without review, without lifting a finger, regardless of the financial situation of those having to pay for it. It goes BEYOND ludicrous, to believe such a system and practice can just continue on, in spite of billions of dollars in shortfalls each year, in state budgets, and trillions in the federal budget. I think the word for that, is INSANE!
Click to expand...

What is a scam is the arbitrary way the government can change the rules. The union and the government made a deal. A deal is a deal.

If one loses their job can they arbitrarily stop paying their mortgage? Well, we've seen what happened in those cases. They're kicked out of their house.

I suppose the government can hire contractors to pave streets and put up buildings and then refuse to pay the people who did the work. Why not? Simply say they have no money.

The government has the money or is capable of getting it. The people who voted for previous Wis. governments should be held responsible for the contracts those governments entered into. Of course, that only applies to those who feel one should be responsible for their actions.

Republicans keep talking about responsibility but it's obvious, from the Bush/Cheney war expenses to the Wis. government dishonoring union contracts, their words are horse $hit.
 
Voltaire said:
Has anyone else noticed Crashk never actually debates anyone? He just stops by and posts one of his insane rants, and when someone points out his error, he either responds with something completely irrelevant or takes off.
Click to expand...
He tried debating once but was destroyed.
 
C'Thulhu said:
So you don't count on something you've spent the better part of 4 decades paying into? Telling.
Click to expand...

Bud plans to start drawing on it as was advised by a person we spoke with from DC, but for our retirement and what we will need to live to be 90, just in case there is something that goes terribly wrong with SS, we don't want to have to count on it to be able to live. We don't try to think about super inflation or other ugliness, but we do think about SS not being there, anymore.
 
apple0154 said:
From what I've read their salaries have been cut. They have to contribute more towards their medical and pensions which is equivalent to an 8% decrease in take-home pay.
Click to expand...

They still have to do less contributing thne what most American's do...and they still contribute much less then Federal employee's do. That is not a cut, that is the government saving tax payers which helps everyone in their state!!!
 
Ice Dancer said:
They still have to do less contributing thne what most American's do...and they still contribute much less then Federal employee's do. That is not a cut, that is the government saving tax payers which helps everyone in their state!!!
Click to expand...

Then increase tax contributions from people earning over $250,000/yr and that will also help the majority of tax-payers.

However, the point is the government and the union entered into a contract in good faith. Since when is one party arbitrarily canceling/altering a contract the "decent" thing to do?

Let's say the unionized folks worked 8 hours/5 days a week from 8 to 4:30 with 1/2 an hour for lunch during the 90s when governments were raking in the $$$. Imagine the union arbitrarily deciding the employees could go home at 1:30 on Fridays while still demanding the same compensation. (40 hours - 8% (3.2 hrs) = 36.8)

I wonder if anyone would have had a problem with that. :rolleyes:
 
apple0154 said:
Then increase tax contributions from people earning over $250,000/yr and that will also help the majority of tax-payers.

However, the point is the government and the union entered into a contract in good faith. Since when is one party arbitrarily canceling/altering a contract the "decent" thing to do?

Let's say the unionized folks worked 8 hours/5 days a week from 8 to 4:30 with 1/2 an hour for lunch during the 90s when governments were raking in the $$$. Imagine the union arbitrarily deciding the employees could go home at 1:30 on Fridays while still demanding the same compensation. (40 hours - 8% (3.2 hrs) = 36.8)

I wonder if anyone would have had a problem with that. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That's an unfair class warfare approach apple! People earning 250k already pay in dollars much more then the 50k person. Allowing people to keep their own fucking money is fair...putting reasonable limits on public wages and benefits is responsible governence...taxing the private sector folks in order to give bloated wages and top notch benei's for public workers is not.
 
Ice Dancer said:
That's an unfair class warfare approach apple! People earning 250k already pay in dollars much more then the 50k person. Allowing people to keep their own fucking money is fair...putting reasonable limits on public wages and benefits is responsible governence...taxing the private sector folks in order to give bloated wages and top notch benei's for public workers is not.
Click to expand...

Class warfare? Cutting the wages of people earning 50k is preferable to increasing the taxes on those who earn more than $250k? Not only that but arbitrarily dishonoring a contract already in force is preferable to voting in a new tax law?

Where is your sense of justice? Respecting a contract is the fair and honorable thing to do. By what moral or ethical values should the State Employees be bound going forward?
 
apple0154 said:
Class warfare? Cutting the wages of people earning 50k is preferable to increasing the taxes on those who earn more than $250k? Not only that but arbitrarily dishonoring a contract already in force is preferable to voting in a new tax law?

Where is your sense of justice? Respecting a contract is the fair and honorable thing to do. By what moral or ethical values should the State Employees be bound going forward?
Click to expand...

No ones wages have been cut...and government has no business deciding who gets to keep their money and who does not based on public jobs! Requiring public employees to pick up some of their own medical needs is hardly class warfare...targeting one class of people by taking more taxes from them is!
 
Threedee said:
My grandfather was a typist for the Seattle Times. His union, the Int. Typographical Union (ITU) went bankrupt in the early 80s and lost his pension. He was picked up by Communication Workers of America (CWA) on a 10 year plan, and had to work until he was 75. The pension was lame, and he lucked out by having invested heavily in Microsoft and some other good stocks.

However, when pensions are guaranteed by a stable business or the freaking government itself, I think most people feel a bit secure.
Click to expand...

What's going to happen with the pensions of the WaMu people? I know of several Pgh. businesses that went belly-up and the pensioners got screwed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top