Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Examiner)   What would America be like without Republicans? Just take a look at California, and you'll get a pretty clear picture of it   (washingtonexaminer.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, GOP  
•       •       •

3493 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Jul 2012 at 10:33 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



332 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-07-17 12:33:21 PM  

Fart_Machine: Super Chronic: Fart_Machine: Also you're forgetting Pete Wilson and George Deukmejian.

I didn't write the article. But in any event, which of Wilson or Deukmejian do you think was elected after 1994?

Pete Wilson was in office till 1999. You wanna try that again?


Sure, I'll try that again. Which of Wilson or Deukmejian do you think was ELECTED after 1994? And I'll refer you back to the quote with which this whole conversation started: "California, where no non-cyborg Republican has been elected governor since 1994."
 
2012-07-17 12:33:57 PM  
Still haven't heard an explanation for how we solve the problem of 61 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities by reducing executive pay.

I'll wait.
 
2012-07-17 12:34:13 PM  
I don't know if this has been shown yet but I think it applies to the thread i290.photobucket.com

You can make arguments that some of the states aren't the right color but the main message is still the same.
 
2012-07-17 12:34:57 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Still haven't heard an explanation for how we solve the problem of 61 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities by reducing executive pay.

I'll wait.


Tell us how we can solve it bey reducing worker pay.
 
2012-07-17 12:35:15 PM  

Fark It: What makes public sector employees so goddamn special?


If a skilled private employee makes $100,000 per year, why can't a public employee for equivalent work?
 
2012-07-17 12:35:15 PM  

vpb:
Is Subby is retarded



FTFY
 
2012-07-17 12:35:54 PM  

ferretman: If there were no Republicans the country would look like:
[russthorne.kohlarn.com image 700x525]

/Spending much more than you bring in.....just how does that work?


Why are all the republican states on the dole then?
 
2012-07-17 12:37:41 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Ah, another tool for my ignore list. Thanks. It's really sad that you people can't debate an issue without ad hominem attacks. It's why your philosophy fails - it's not based on logic, it's based on anger and irrational emotion. Arguing with liberals is a lot like arguing with women.


So you're a misogynist too, I see. You're just a spectacular person, aren't you?
 
2012-07-17 12:38:12 PM  

ferretman: If there were no Republicans the country would look like:
[russthorne.kohlarn.com image 700x525]

/Spending much more than you bring in.....just how does that work?


*Citation Needed*
Please point to a time the GOP was in charge of the country and spent less then they brought in.
 
2012-07-17 12:38:15 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Fart_Machine: theorellior: Occam's Nailfile: Your union masters?

LOL. Hey, seadoo2006, since you're part of a successful company that shares the wealth, you must be part of the evil union cabal conspiring to take down America. I bet that comes as a shock.

All you need to know about Occam's Nailfile.

[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 500x273]

Ah, another tool for my ignore list. Thanks. It's really sad that you people can't debate an issue without ad hominem attacks. It's why your philosophy fails - it's not based on logic, it's based on anger and irrational emotion. Arguing with liberals is a lot like arguing with women.


Oh no, not the ignore list! Posting a quote from you isn't an ad hominem attack and it's not my fault that women find you repulsive and don't want to sleep with you.
 
2012-07-17 12:38:45 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Still haven't heard an explanation for how we solve the problem of 61 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities by reducing executive pay.


That's a problem of company management, which sounds to me like some people haven't been earning their inflated salaries as C-level managers.

It also sounds like you're insinuating a bailout of some sort is necessary, which would mean those supposedly high-level CEOs won't actually have to manage anything at all.

C-level management sounds like quite the cushy deal. You're right, I should look into it. I'll be making millions in no time, just by not managing my company's pensions properly.
 
2012-07-17 12:38:46 PM  

herrDrFarkenstein: [grindingdown.files.wordpress.com image 499x318]

Subby, Crom will cast your sorry ass out of Valhala and laugh.


Ergh...I'd like to forget that ever happened. Here's Dylan Moran elaborating on the whole Aah-nold situation.
 
2012-07-17 12:38:48 PM  

Jackson Herring: what_now: [www.statesymbolsusa.org image 330x326]

/except for that one, but he was a mistake and we're fixing that.

How is it that we got the bay state, but rhode island got the entire farkin ocean? Especially since RI is pretty much just one huge bay.


Because wee little Rhody reminded someone of the "Isle of Rhodes".
 
2012-07-17 12:40:17 PM  

LargeCanine: "At some point we Californians should ask ourselves, how we inherited a state with near perfect weather, the world's richest agriculture, plentiful timber, minerals, and oil, two great ports at Los Angeles and Oakland, a natural tourist industry from Carmel to Yosemite, industries such as Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and aerospace-and serially managed to turn all of that into the nation's largest penal system, periodic near bankruptcy, and sky-high taxes." - Victor Hanson Davis


Somebody should ask Victor Hanson Davis how his hero, George W. Bush, managed to take a budgetary surplus and turn it into a half trillion dollar deficit. If Davis can be convinced to take his lips off of Donald Rumsfeld for a minute maybe he could explain that to us, that is, if he can stop calling for a war against Iran long enough to give an explanation.
This turd is a neo-con who supported both the unfunded wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and is a classic chicken hawk who has vocally supported policies that have done tremendous harm to this country. He is an expert in ancient warfare and he should stick to what he knows because his ideas about the modern world have been proven to be catastrophic failures. Screw Victor farking Hanson Farking Davis.
 
MFL
2012-07-17 12:40:44 PM  
Corvus We have the biggest budget cuts EVER!!! They are doing what the many Republican Governors always promised to do but never did.

A. The Republican governor could not make the cuts because the democrat legislature blocked everything and threw a political tantrum every step of the way for their own gain. Arnold eventually just threw his hands up and said fark it and rejoined the hollywood crowd.

B. The only reason cuts are being made now is because the bond market has a gun to your head.

C. If the shortsighted democrats would have put their politics aside and allowed some of those cuts proposed earlier this decade, most of these massive cuts (that haven't even happend yet) would be avoided.


Aarontology: themindiswatching: See what happens when voters keep the state from raising revenue while forcing it to spend money?


So.....when public unions (aka all democrats) negotiate with state legislators (aka almost all democrats) to give themselves raises, a sweet benefit package only one could dream of in the private sector, and a pensions that pays more and pays earlier than anything else known to man..........you blame the already overtaxed voters who had nothing to do with this for not wanting to keep the gravy train alive?

wow.
 
2012-07-17 12:41:06 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Still haven't heard an explanation for how we solve the problem of 61 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities by reducing executive pay.

I'll wait.


Those are future liabilities you idiot. Are you going to count the rent you pay for a building for the next 10 years as "unfunded liabilities" too? Should we count the military we will pay in the future "unfunded liabilities" too? Why are you cherry picking?

That math is bullshiat accounting. People will pay into the system in future years. Just like everything else.

Also they are not true liabilities because congress can change them, just like everything else. It is not a contract. You fail.
 
2012-07-17 12:41:36 PM  

Super Chronic: Fart_Machine: Super Chronic: Fart_Machine: Also you're forgetting Pete Wilson and George Deukmejian.

I didn't write the article. But in any event, which of Wilson or Deukmejian do you think was elected after 1994?

Pete Wilson was in office till 1999. You wanna try that again?

Sure, I'll try that again. Which of Wilson or Deukmejian do you think was ELECTED after 1994? And I'll refer you back to the quote with which this whole conversation started: "California, where no non-cyborg Republican has been elected governor since 1994."


Wow, that's cherry picking. "No Republican governors were elected after this Republican governor's election. Except for that one Republican governor, who was elected twice. Out of a sample size of four elections."
 
2012-07-17 12:41:53 PM  

Super Chronic: Fart_Machine: Super Chronic: Fart_Machine: Also you're forgetting Pete Wilson and George Deukmejian.

I didn't write the article. But in any event, which of Wilson or Deukmejian do you think was elected after 1994?

Pete Wilson was in office till 1999. You wanna try that again?

Sure, I'll try that again. Which of Wilson or Deukmejian do you think was ELECTED after 1994? And I'll refer you back to the quote with which this whole conversation started: "California, where no non-cyborg Republican has been elected governor since 1994."


Pete Wilson was elected in 1994. Are you really going to parse that because he wasn't elected in 1995 and was instead serving as acting governor at the time?
 
2012-07-17 12:42:18 PM  

theorellior: Occam's Nailfile: When did I ever say that? I said that the people in charge will earn more than the rest. Want to earn more? Become one of them. Expecting some company to set you up for life in this economy is retarded.

You've been running seadoo2006's situation down all through this thread. He seems to be trying something different than the top-heavy compensation situation that seems to be the norm these days, and it seems to be working. That's not good enough for you. It's gonna collapse, it's gonna fail, doom and gloom. Wanna make more money? Sorry, the only way is to join the 1%. Oh, except that you've got a 1 in 100 chance of actually joining the 1%, so sucks to be you.

Winning the game is not raping the land of all it can bear. Winning the game is providing for your present and posterity, and making opportunities for those around you. WInning is not carte blanch to hoard everything for yourself. That's psychopathy.


I didn't read about seadoo2006's situation, except the brief comment he made directly to me about it. I am not saying he's going to fail. I am saying that the idea of paying 20-50 years after they stop working is unsustainable, and as evidence, I put forth not only the auto industry, but our public sector. There is not enough money moving around to sustain the system, period. Our $61 trillion in unfunded liabilities is damn near the GDP of the entire planet, which is about $69 trillion right now.

It's really, really simple math. There is not enough money, and there is no plan for there to eventually be enough money, to sustain the level of public sector spending we currently have. We will default. Period. It is only a matter of time. Call me an alarmist or whatever you like, but if someone can offer even a half-assed idea on how to solve the problem, I will listen. All I hear on fark however is that rich people are too rich. Never mind that you could confiscate every dollar of wealth the rich posses and not even put a pockmark in the problem we face.
 
2012-07-17 12:43:14 PM  
What America would look like without any Democrats:

www.iandrinstitute.org
 
2012-07-17 12:43:52 PM  

theorellior: Occam's Nailfile: Still haven't heard an explanation for how we solve the problem of 61 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities by reducing executive pay.

That's a problem of company management, which sounds to me like some people haven't been earning their inflated salaries as C-level managers.

It also sounds like you're insinuating a bailout of some sort is necessary, which would mean those supposedly high-level CEOs won't actually have to manage anything at all.

C-level management sounds like quite the cushy deal. You're right, I should look into it. I'll be making millions in no time, just by not managing my company's pensions properly.


You have a dumb.

The 61 trillion dollars is US government debt, not private sector debt.
 
2012-07-17 12:44:41 PM  

MFL: A. The Republican governor could not make the cuts because the democrat legislature blocked everything and threw a political tantrum every step of the way for their own gain. Arnold eventually just threw his hands up and said fark it and rejoined the hollywood crowd.


LOL no. He was actually blocked by his Republican colleagues who wouldn't break the impasse necessary for a 2/3 majority vote.
 
2012-07-17 12:45:11 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: theorellior: Occam's Nailfile: When did I ever say that? I said that the people in charge will earn more than the rest. Want to earn more? Become one of them. Expecting some company to set you up for life in this economy is retarded.

You've been running seadoo2006's situation down all through this thread. He seems to be trying something different than the top-heavy compensation situation that seems to be the norm these days, and it seems to be working. That's not good enough for you. It's gonna collapse, it's gonna fail, doom and gloom. Wanna make more money? Sorry, the only way is to join the 1%. Oh, except that you've got a 1 in 100 chance of actually joining the 1%, so sucks to be you.

Winning the game is not raping the land of all it can bear. Winning the game is providing for your present and posterity, and making opportunities for those around you. WInning is not carte blanch to hoard everything for yourself. That's psychopathy.

I didn't read about seadoo2006's situation, except the brief comment he made directly to me about it. I am not saying he's going to fail. I am saying that the idea of paying 20-50 years after they stop working is unsustainable, and as evidence, I put forth not only the auto industry, but our public sector. There is not enough money moving around to sustain the system, period. Our $61 trillion in unfunded liabilities is damn near the GDP of the entire planet, which is about $69 trillion right now.

It's really, really simple math. There is not enough money, and there is no plan for there to eventually be enough money, to sustain the level of public sector spending we currently have. We will default. Period. It is only a matter of time. Call me an alarmist or whatever you like, but if someone can offer even a half-assed idea on how to solve the problem, I will listen. All I hear on fark however is that rich people are too rich. Never mind that you could confiscate every dollar of wealth the rich posses and not even put a po ...


So tell us, how much more are YOU personally willing to sacrifice to resolve the issue?
 
2012-07-17 12:46:59 PM  
In order for California to be "America without Republicans", wouldn't California have to be a Republican-free zone?

Since 1967, California has had twenty-eight years of Republican Governors, more than half the total period. There's Ronald Reagan (1967-1975), Arnie, Proposition 13, and Orange County Conservatives. There's also Richard M. Nixon.

Most of what is wrong with California's budget is just as much the fault of Republicans as Democrats, so how does California represent America without Republicans? Big Deficit Finance is bi-partisan. Stupidity is bi-partisan. And right-wing government without fiscal responsability or restraint is bi-partisan.

Throwing all the facts down the memory hole, however, seems to be a peculiar trait of conservatives, libertarians, and fascists, except for communists.
 
2012-07-17 12:47:33 PM  

MFL: Corvus We have the biggest budget cuts EVER!!! They are doing what the many Republican Governors always promised to do but never did.

A. The Republican governor could not make the cuts because the democrat legislature blocked everything and threw a political tantrum every step of the way for their own gain. Arnold eventually just threw his hands up and said fark it and rejoined the hollywood crowd.


Well Brown is doing it. Yes the Republican Governors were too incompetent to make cuts. I am glad you agree!! Maybe if their plan was the teachers/employees paying for all the cuts they could of got somewhere.

B. The only reason cuts are being made now is because the bond market has a gun to your head.

Because of REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS and Republicans blocking any tax increase.

C. If the shortsighted democrats would have put their politics aside and allowed some of those cuts proposed earlier this decade, most of these massive cuts (that haven't even happend yet) would be avoided.

Schwarzenegger got in and said he would work with the Democrats and then when he got in he began to call them names!!

Is that "working together" when you are making personal attacks against people like Schwarzenegger did?

Oh so as long as Democrats did EVERYTHING THE REPUBLICANS WANTED things would of worked out? I see that's your definition of "compromise"?

Under the Republican leadership spending went UP! Only now when it is all Democrats are cuts actually being made. You can't argue that.

Sorry if like an abused wife you get mad at the person telling your husband is no good instead of the person abusing you. The Republicans have lied, the have always lied. Only now are things actually being fixed.
 
2012-07-17 12:48:00 PM  

Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: Still haven't heard an explanation for how we solve the problem of 61 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities by reducing executive pay.

I'll wait.

Those are future liabilities you idiot. Are you going to count the rent you pay for a building for the next 10 years as "unfunded liabilities" too? Should we count the military we will pay in the future "unfunded liabilities" too? Why are you cherry picking?

That math is bullshiat accounting. People will pay into the system in future years. Just like everything else.

Also they are not true liabilities because congress can change them, just like everything else. It is not a contract. You fail.


Those are liabilities we cannot escape from. Pensions, social security payments, contracted obligations.

From the article:

"The government has promised pension and health benefits worth more than $700,000 per retired civil servant. The pension fund's key asset: federal IOUs."

We're not talking about next year's rent. We are talking about next year's contracted pensions. Tell me, how do we go about not paying those?
 
2012-07-17 12:49:20 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: I am saying that the idea of paying 20-50 years after they stop working is unsustainable, and as evidence, I put forth not only the auto industry, but our public sector. There is not enough money moving around to sustain the system, period. Our $61 trillion in unfunded liabilities is damn near the GDP of the entire planet, which is about $69 trillion right now.


Okay, I hear you. Well, part of the solution, of course, would be to raise the retirement age to 70, or even 75. Life expectancy is much higher now, I think that would be workable and reduce the liability for many pension systems.

The way the thread proceeded, it sounded like you were arguing against seadoo2006's setup of equal distribution of profits and decent benefits for all, regardless of position in the hierarchy.
 
2012-07-17 12:50:41 PM  
Conservatives have a perpetual lack of clue regarding California.
 
2012-07-17 12:52:03 PM  

theorellior: Occam's Nailfile: I am saying that the idea of paying 20-50 years after they stop working is unsustainable, and as evidence, I put forth not only the auto industry, but our public sector. There is not enough money moving around to sustain the system, period. Our $61 trillion in unfunded liabilities is damn near the GDP of the entire planet, which is about $69 trillion right now.

Okay, I hear you. Well, part of the solution, of course, would be to raise the retirement age to 70, or even 75. Life expectancy is much higher now, I think that would be workable and reduce the liability for many pension systems.

The way the thread proceeded, it sounded like you were arguing against seadoo2006's setup of equal distribution of profits and decent benefits for all, regardless of position in the hierarchy.


Life expectancy may be longer, but that doesn't mean that we can expect people to stay in every job until 70 or 75. A 70 or 75 year old firefighter, cop, construction worker or any other job that requires physical labor is still going to have great difficulties at best performing those functions at that age.
 
2012-07-17 12:53:01 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So tell us, how much more are YOU personally willing to sacrifice to resolve the issue?


The $61 trillion dollar issue? Not a farking nickel more than what the government already takes from me. I don't generally like to throw good money after bad, especially when even if everyone in the US gave everything they earn, the problem would still be there.

Still don't hear an explanation about how reducing corporate salaries solves the problem though, or even makes the tiniest bit of difference. Still waiting.
 
2012-07-17 12:53:31 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: "The government has promised pension and health benefits worth more than $700,000 per retired civil servant. The pension fund's key asset: federal IOUs."


Well, nobody's gonna cash in all the T-bills in the world at one time, so this is something of a non-problem. Federal debt is rolling debt, which is actually good for the world economy. I mean, there was a thread a couple months back with a link on how there are still debts outstanding from the Revolutionary War that the Treasury keeps rolling over because no one has claimed them.
 
2012-07-17 12:54:15 PM  

I_C_Weener: Fart_Machine: rumpelstiltskin: That guy has no idea how California works.

People who believe California only consists of Los Angeles and San Francisco.

[i586.photobucket.com image 500x350]

And Luthorville, Lextown, and Otisburg.


Otisburg? OTISBURG?!?!?
 
2012-07-17 12:55:09 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: Still haven't heard an explanation for how we solve the problem of 61 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities by reducing executive pay.

I'll wait.

Those are future liabilities you idiot. Are you going to count the rent you pay for a building for the next 10 years as "unfunded liabilities" too? Should we count the military we will pay in the future "unfunded liabilities" too? Why are you cherry picking?

That math is bullshiat accounting. People will pay into the system in future years. Just like everything else.

Also they are not true liabilities because congress can change them, just like everything else. It is not a contract. You fail.

Those are liabilities we cannot escape from. Pensions, social security payments, contracted obligations.

From the article:

"The government has promised pension and health benefits worth more than $700,000 per retired civil servant. The pension fund's key asset: federal IOUs."

We're not talking about next year's rent. We are talking about next year's contracted pensions. Tell me, how do we go about not paying those?


NO! Read your own article:

The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.


Those are not contracts does Medicare and Social Security count as your "contracted pensions"? Yes or NO?
 
2012-07-17 12:56:08 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Life expectancy may be longer, but that doesn't mean that we can expect people to stay in every job until 70 or 75. A 70 or 75 year old firefighter, cop, construction worker or any other job that requires physical labor is still going to have great difficulties at best performing those functions at that age.


True, so maybe instead of a pension we offer a job-placement system for those people after a certain age? Or maybe a tax credit on income form other jobs after a certain age?
 
2012-07-17 12:58:40 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: Still haven't heard an explanation for how we solve the problem of 61 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities by reducing executive pay.

I'll wait.

Those are future liabilities you idiot. Are you going to count the rent you pay for a building for the next 10 years as "unfunded liabilities" too? Should we count the military we will pay in the future "unfunded liabilities" too? Why are you cherry picking?

That math is bullshiat accounting. People will pay into the system in future years. Just like everything else.

Also they are not true liabilities because congress can change them, just like everything else. It is not a contract. You fail.

Those are liabilities we cannot escape from. Pensions, social security payments, contracted obligations.

From the article:

"The government has promised pension and health benefits worth more than $700,000 per retired civil servant. The pension fund's key asset: federal IOUs."

We're not talking about next year's rent. We are talking about next year's contracted pensions. Tell me, how do we go about not paying those?


Yes, but the cash necessary to pay them hasn't been made yet. You're talking about counting the total obligation we have to count:
-a 67.4 year old worker due to retire
-the 45-year-old working down the hall
-the 22-year-old fresh out of college

and all those in between as "retiring and drawing 20+ years worth of benefits TODAY".

If you can't tell why/how that's retarded, you're too dumb to internet.

// oh, and how much of their contributions have been counted against that ZOMGZZZ$61 TRILLION?
// you know - money the pensioners haven't contributed yet, since they haven't gotten the paycheck yet, since the contract hasn't been signed yet, since the need hasn't been defined yet, since the deficiency hasn't yet manifested itself
// times thousands of government workers under age 40
 
2012-07-17 01:01:27 PM  

I Said: Let's compare the coasts (dominantly Blue) to the rest, or just an overall red vs blue state comparison. See what you fund, subby, on education level, income, health, etc.


Also, a list of which states are being supported by the Federal government vs. their degree of Republican-ness might be illuminating.

(Yes, farm subsidies, veterans benefits, and military spending all count as federal money.)
 
2012-07-17 01:03:25 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Yes, but the cash necessary to pay them hasn't been made yet. You're talking about counting the total obligation we have to count:
-a 67.4 year old worker due to retire
-the 45-year-old working down the hall
-the 22-year-old fresh out of college

and all those in between as "retiring and drawing 20+ years worth of benefits TODAY".

If you can't tell why/how that's retarded, you're too dumb to internet.


Yes if business had to count pensions like that they would all be considered bankrupt. It's idiotic.

It's like saying "OMG my business needs to pay rent for the next 10 years! Therefore I have $600,000 in unfunded liability!!!! DERP! DERP!!!"

I am not saying the system doesn't need to be fixed. But it's not as horrible as they make it sound.
 
2012-07-17 01:05:43 PM  

coeyagi: If Republicans didn't exist, quickmeme.com would take a hit as well as gun sales. I'm pretty sure there would be fetus landfills if I heard Limbaugh correctly, and our population would be on a much better trajectory towards sustainability.

Other things a GOP-less existence would afford us:


-More Yuengling



Based on this alone i approve your message
 
2012-07-17 01:05:56 PM  

Corvus: The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.

Those are not contracts does Medicare and Social Security count as your "contracted pensions"? Yes or NO?


I will repeat:

"The government has promised pension and health benefits worth more than $700,000 per retired civil servant. The pension fund's key asset: federal IOUs."
You are referring only to the $5.3 trillion in increased Medicare and Social Security costs. Which also are payments our nation is fully obligated to make...unless you are suggesting we stop? That the people who contributed to i>those plans their whole lives, as part of their retirement, should go pound sand?

It sounds like you are not familiar with the problem. That's OK, most people are not - they only think of this year's deficit, or the current national debt. The $61 trillion problem cannot be resolved by our current system, as our national GDP is only about $15 trillion per year, and the $61 trillion number increases much faster each year than the GDP. Eventually, you reach a point where there is not enough money to cover annual costs, and then you default, and the system collapses. That's what's happening in Europe.

Educate yourself on the issue, don't just rail against it because you don't like what it means.
 
2012-07-17 01:08:34 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Corvus: The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.

Those are not contracts does Medicare and Social Security count as your "contracted pensions"? Yes or NO?

I will repeat:

"The government has promised pension and health benefits worth more than $700,000 per retired civil servant. The pension fund's key asset: federal IOUs."
You are referring only to the $5.3 trillion in increased Medicare and Social Security costs. Which also are payments our nation is fully obligated to make...unless you are suggesting we stop? That the people who contributed to i>those plans their whole lives, as part of their retirement, should go pound sand?

It sounds like you are not familiar with the problem. That's OK, most people are not - they only think of this year's deficit, or the current national debt. The $61 trillion problem cannot be resolved by our current system, as our national GDP is only about $15 trillion per year, and the $61 trillion number increases much faster each year than the GDP. Eventually, you reach a point where there is not enough money to cover annual costs, and then you default, and the system collapses. That's what's happening in Europe.

Educate yourself on the issue, don't just rail against it because you don't like what it means.


Those obligations are FUTURE OBLIGATIONS - Other people will be paying into the system.

Yes we can modify those future obligation of Social Security and Medicare. Yes I am suggesting to modify them.

Do you think we have future military obligations to? Or are you planning the US to get rid of the US military in 10 years. So why are you not counting those costs too?
 
2012-07-17 01:11:01 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Corvus: The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.

Those are not contracts does Medicare and Social Security count as your "contracted pensions"? Yes or NO?

I will repeat:

"The government has promised pension and health benefits worth more than $700,000 per retired civil servant. The pension fund's key asset: federal IOUs."
You are referring only to the $5.3 trillion in increased Medicare and Social Security costs. Which also are payments our nation is fully obligated to make...unless you are suggesting we stop? That the people who contributed to i>those plans their whole lives, as part of their retirement, should go pound sand?

It sounds like you are not familiar with the problem. That's OK, most people are not - they only think of this year's deficit, or the current national debt. The $61 trillion problem cannot be resolved by our current system, as our national GDP is only about $15 trillion per year, and the $61 trillion number increases much faster each year than the GDP. Eventually, you reach a point where there is not enough money to cover annual costs, and then you default, and the system collapses. That's what's happening in Europe.

Educate yourself on the issue, don't just rail against it because you don't like what it means.


I know what you are saying. YOU ARE WRONG. You seem to be the one not educated. You don't understand the difference between obligations and FUTURE obligations. You are getting them confused. You are counting future obligations like they are current obligations. THEY ARE NOT.

You never answered my question:

Does Medicare and Social Security count as your "contracted pensions"? Yes or NO?


Do you not know, the answer?
 
2012-07-17 01:12:30 PM  

Dr Dreidel: // oh, and how much of their contributions have been counted against that ZOMGZZZ$61 TRILLION?
// you know - money the pensioners haven't contributed yet, since they haven't gotten the paycheck yet, since the contract hasn't been signed yet, since the need hasn't been defined yet, since the deficiency hasn't yet manifested itself
// times thousands of government workers under age 40


I'll repeat what I just said to Corvus:

The $61 trillion problem cannot be resolved by our current system, as our national GDP is only about $15 trillion per year, and the $61 trillion number increases much faster each year than the GDP. Eventually, you reach a point where there is not enough money to cover annual costs, and then you default, and the system collapses.

The annual contributions you refer to don't even cover the interest on the debt of what is owed. That's why the Social Security system is due to fail well before you or I can collect our benefits.

It's a big Ponzi scheme, the biggest in the world, and unless we dramatically change things, like, right damned now, its end is just as inevitable as if Madoff were running it.
 
2012-07-17 01:12:43 PM  

Dr Dreidel: We're not talking about next year's rent. We are talking about next year's contracted pensions. Tell me, how do we go about not paying those?


So then your numbers are counting ONLY THE MONEY WE PAY OUT FOR NEXT YEAR?

Or are they FUTURE OBLIGATIONS? And if they are future obligations why are you not counting the future revenue against them?
 
2012-07-17 01:14:39 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: It's a big Ponzi scheme, the biggest in the world, and unless we dramatically change things, like, right damned now, its end is just as inevitable as if Madoff were running it.


You don't know the definition of a Ponzi scheme, your once again embarrassing yourself with your lack of knowledge.

All pensions systems are not funded for all liability in the future. NONE ARE.
 
2012-07-17 01:16:19 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: It's a big Ponzi scheme


We can add Ponzi schemes to the list of things you don't understand.
 
2012-07-17 01:16:45 PM  
Every one of you assholes deserve what is going to happen in the near future. When you're suffering, know that you deserve it.
 
2012-07-17 01:21:06 PM  

Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: Corvus: The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.

Those are not contracts does Medicare and Social Security count as your "contracted pensions"? Yes or NO?

I will repeat:

"The government has promised pension and health benefits worth more than $700,000 per retired civil servant. The pension fund's key asset: federal IOUs."
You are referring only to the $5.3 trillion in increased Medicare and Social Security costs. Which also are payments our nation is fully obligated to make...unless you are suggesting we stop? That the people who contributed to i>those plans their whole lives, as part of their retirement, should go pound sand?

It sounds like you are not familiar with the problem. That's OK, most people are not - they only think of this year's deficit, or the current national debt. The $61 trillion problem cannot be resolved by our current system, as our national GDP is only about $15 trillion per year, and the $61 trillion number increases much faster each year than the GDP. Eventually, you reach a point where there is not enough money to cover annual costs, and then you default, and the system collapses. That's what's happening in Europe.

Educate yourself on the issue, don't just rail against it because you don't like what it means.

I know what you are saying. YOU ARE WRONG. You seem to be the one not educated. You don't understand the difference between obligations and FUTURE obligations. You are getting them confused. You are counting future obligations like they are current obligations. THEY ARE NOT.

You never answered my question:

Does Medicare and Social Security count as your "contracted pensions"? Yes or NO?

Do you not know, the answer?


You're really not very smart Corvus.

There are different issues being discussed in the article. Contracted public sector pensions and Social Security obligations, both of which are government funded retirement plans for citizens. Neither of which has enough money, or are projected to ever take in enough money, to meet their obligations.

If I am only going to earn, say, $10 million dollars in a lifetime, but I am projected to owe $20 million dollars in my lifetime, at some point, $10 million dollars of debt never gets paid. We owe more than we can ever collect in revenues, and while we are bringing in enough to not default today, we are falling behind, fast, and default at this rate is inevitable.

You are thinking that because of the word "future", that there is some chance that those debts might go away, or that the money will show up to pay for them. There is no solution even being discussed, by anyone, from either party, in any branch of government, to address the issue. No one has any ideas beyond draconian cuts that the people won't agree to. It doesn't matter if those obligations come due tomorrow, or next week, or next year - eventually, the supply of revenue doesn't meet the level of expenditures, and the system fails. Make sense yet?
 
2012-07-17 01:23:43 PM  

Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: It's a big Ponzi scheme, the biggest in the world, and unless we dramatically change things, like, right damned now, its end is just as inevitable as if Madoff were running it.

You don't know the definition of a Ponzi scheme, your once again embarrassing yourself with your lack of knowledge.

All pensions systems are not funded for all liability in the future. NONE ARE.


I know that Corvus. But if the total expected payout is greater than the total expected inbound revenue, the system is doomed to failure. That's where we are today. There is no way to ever take in the $61 trillion we are expected to eventually pay out, and it is certain that the $61 trillion number will increase even further.
 
2012-07-17 01:25:05 PM  

MFL: A. The Republican governor could not make the cuts because the democrat legislature blocked everything and threw a political tantrum every step of the way for their own gain. Arnold eventually just threw his hands up and said fark it and rejoined the hollywood crowd.


Yeah, like when those damn Democrats blocked his pension reform to protect their union donors!!!!

Oh wait.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in his weekly radio address yesterday that Republican legislators, who tried to block his pension reform bill this month, may have "sold out" to the prison guard union for campaign contributions.
...
The governor said the special session allowed the pension bill to be passed on a majority vote, rather than a two-thirds vote, with Democrats providing all the votes expected from them.

After the pension bill passed, several Republicans, including Assemblymen Jeff Miller of Mission Viejo and Dan Logue of Linda, changed their votes so the official record would not reflect their opposition.

"Not only did they try to block reform, but then they did not even have the courage to publicly stand behind their action," said the governor. "They were worried that when they went back to their districts people would find out they sided with labor rather than with the taxpayers."
 
2012-07-17 01:27:00 PM  
My Grandfather retired at 55 yrs old for Bell Atlantic....he's currently 97 and still collecting his pension. He only worked for Bell for ~30 yrs; he's been collecting a pension for longer than he actually worked. Pension plans had their appropriate time & place but now it is time for them to become more reasonable.
 
Displayed 50 of 332 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report