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.

(Chicago Trib)   2013: Illinois lawmakers pass law eviscerating constitutionally protected pensions for state workers and pensions. 2014: Unions get ready to bend Illinois lawmakers over   (chicagotribune.com) divider line 140
    More: Obvious, Illinois, pass laws, Illinois lawmakers, Municipal Employees, Sangamon County, pensions, unions, workers  
•       •       •

3621 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Jan 2014 at 3:12 PM (26 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



140 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-28 02:03:59 PM
They will lose. Louisiana tried the same thing. They lost.


http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/06/jindal_pension_unconstit ut iona.html


Bobby Jindal is cray cray.
edge.liveleak.com
 
2014-01-28 02:14:13 PM
The pension for a pension?
 
2014-01-28 02:33:14 PM
"Those Pplaintiffs who are current employees teach our children, care for the sick and disabled, protect us from harm and perform myriad other essential services for Illinois and its citizens.

I know they don't check articles for mistakes before they go up on the Chicago Tribune website.
 
2014-01-28 02:48:12 PM

Fubini: The pension for a pension?


The penchant for a pension?
 
2014-01-28 03:20:21 PM

timujin: Fubini: The pension for a pension?

The penchant for a pension?


The penchant of a passion for a pension?
 
2014-01-28 03:22:57 PM

Rixel: timujin: Fubini: The pension for a pension?

The penchant for a pension?

The penchant of a passion for a pension?


A persistent penchant for a passion for punishing pensions.
 
2014-01-28 03:24:35 PM
So I guess the Union just expects the State to create the money out of thin air?

Oh wait they'll just raise taxes.
 
2014-01-28 03:24:37 PM
You know what we need in our political discourse? More rape metaphors.
 
2014-01-28 03:24:49 PM
Ohs noes, employees wanting to get what they're contractually guaranteed!
 
2014-01-28 03:25:59 PM
The real question is: how will Illinois try to close its budget gap, and how hard that will screw over average citizens.
 
2014-01-28 03:26:22 PM

rcantley: Ohs noes, employees wanting to get what they're contractually guaranteed!


Silly poors. Contracts are for job-creators.
 
2014-01-28 03:26:29 PM
Hmm. So if they can set the precedent that pensions are, in fact, a form of property that a person has 'bought' by paying a portion of their paycheck into it...what does that do to all the companies that threw out their pensions and left their retirees with nothing?
 
2014-01-28 03:26:30 PM

under a mountain: So I guess the Union just expects the State to create the money out of thin air?


I think they expect them to abide by the law and honor their agreements.

Oh wait they'll just raise taxes.

Indeed, stuff costs money. It's crazy.
 
2014-01-28 03:27:08 PM
Just wait until the unions rebel and start to vote R.
 
2014-01-28 03:28:38 PM

under a mountain: So I guess the Union just expects the State to create the money out of thin air?

Oh wait they'll just raise taxes.


That should be fun given the constitutionally mandated flat income tax.
 
2014-01-28 03:37:19 PM

Dalrint: Hmm. So if they can set the precedent that pensions are, in fact, a form of property that a person has 'bought' by paying a portion of their paycheck into it...what does that do to all the companies that threw out their pensions and left their retirees with nothing?


Galt Gods!
 
2014-01-28 03:38:27 PM

super_grass: The real question is: how will Illinois try to close its budget gap, and how hard that will screw over average citizens.


the ones who voted for the politicians who decided to raid and underfund the pension funds to pay for short term projects, knowing full well that eventually these bills would have to be paid?
 
2014-01-28 03:38:56 PM

Dalrint: Hmm. So if they can set the precedent that pensions are, in fact, a form of property that a person has 'bought' by paying a portion of their paycheck into it...what does that do to all the companies that threw out their pensions and left their retirees with nothing?


Chapters 11 and/or 13.  The Shareholders' right to maximized profit is not to be suborned to mere contract law or morality.
 
2014-01-28 03:39:08 PM

Dalrint: Hmm. So if they can set the precedent that pensions are, in fact, a form of property that a person has 'bought' by paying a portion of their paycheck into it...what does that do to all the companies that threw out their pensions and left their retirees with nothing?


It's different when a company does it - it's not part of the constitution.
 
2014-01-28 03:39:45 PM

tlchwi02: super_grass: The real question is: how will Illinois try to close its budget gap, and how hard that will screw over average citizens.

the ones who voted for the politicians who decided to raid and underfund the pension funds to pay for short term projects, knowing full well that eventually these bills would have to be paid?


Lots of (D) after those names...
 
2014-01-28 03:41:36 PM

under a mountain: So I guess the Union just expects the State to create the money out of thin air?

Oh wait they'll just raise taxes.


Contracts, how do they work?

/ oh! Only if it benefits the "Job Creators"
 
2014-01-28 03:41:40 PM

joness0154: tlchwi02: super_grass: The real question is: how will Illinois try to close its budget gap, and how hard that will screw over average citizens.

the ones who voted for the politicians who decided to raid and underfund the pension funds to pay for short term projects, knowing full well that eventually these bills would have to be paid?

Lots of (D) after those names...


And?
 
2014-01-28 03:42:28 PM

A Cave Geek: Rixel: timujin: Fubini: The pension for a pension?

The penchant for a pension?

The penchant of a passion for a pension?

A persistent penchant for a passion for punishing pensions.


"The pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon; the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true."
 
2014-01-28 03:43:56 PM

qorkfiend: joness0154: tlchwi02: super_grass: The real question is: how will Illinois try to close its budget gap, and how hard that will screw over average citizens.

the ones who voted for the politicians who decided to raid and underfund the pension funds to pay for short term projects, knowing full well that eventually these bills would have to be paid?

Lots of (D) after those names...

And?


Illinois democrats have been farking over the state for years.  Their lack of effort to fix this pension mess has been farking with the average citizens here for a long time.
 
2014-01-28 03:44:19 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Indeed, stuff costs money. It's crazy.


Also,

Liabilities are legal debts, parties renege on them sometimes. It is very strange.

:)
 
2014-01-28 03:44:53 PM
"Work for us now and we'll pay part of what we owe you now, and we'll pay part when you're retired"

Years later:

"Turns out we can't afford what we promised.  Oops!"

Pensions are such a bad idea.
 
2014-01-28 03:45:13 PM

joness0154: qorkfiend: joness0154: tlchwi02: super_grass: The real question is: how will Illinois try to close its budget gap, and how hard that will screw over average citizens.

the ones who voted for the politicians who decided to raid and underfund the pension funds to pay for short term projects, knowing full well that eventually these bills would have to be paid?

Lots of (D) after those names...

And?

Illinois democrats have been farking over the state for years.  Their lack of effort to fix this pension mess has been farking with the average citizens here for a long time.


If they're not putting any effort into fixing it, why are we here discussing an article about one of their attempts to fix it?
 
2014-01-28 03:46:08 PM
Here's a list of union made beers.

Alexander Keith's IAMAW
Anheuser-Busch IAMAW, IBT
Bass IAMAW
Beck's IAMAW
Bud Light IAMAW, UFCW, IBT
Budweiser IAMAW, IBT
Budweiser American Ale IAMAW
Busch IAMAW
Czechvar IAMAW
Dundee Craft Beer IBT
Genesee Brewery IBT
Goose Island IAMAW
Hamm's IAMAW, UAW
Henry Weinhard's Blue Boar Pale Ale IAMAW, UAW
Henry Weinhard's Private Reserve IAMAW, UAW
Hoegaarden IAMAW
Icehouse IAMAW, UAW
Kirin IAMAW
Labatt's Blue UFCW, IBT
LaBatt's Blue Light UFCW
Landshark Lager IAMAW
Leffe Blonde IAMAW
Lionshead IUOE
Mad River Brewing Co. IAMAW
Michelob IAMAW
Miller Beer IAMAW, UAW
Miller Genuine Draft IAMAW, UAW
Miller High Life IAMAW, UAW
Miller High Life Lite IAMAW, UAW
Miller Lite IAMAW, UAW
Miller Lite Ice IAMAW, UAW
Milwaukee's Best IAMAW, UAW
Milwaukee's Best Ice IAMAW, UAW
Milwaukee's Best Light IAMAW, UAW
Natural Ice IAMAW
Natural Light IAMAW
O'Doul's IAMAW
Olde English 800 IAMAW, UAW
Pabst UAW
Red Dog UAW
Rolling Rock IAMAW
Sharp's IAMAW, UAW
Shock Top IAMAW
Sparks Malt IAMAW
Staropramen IAMAW
Stegmaier IUOE
Stella Artois IAMAW

Apparently, Yuengling is a right to work brewery and its owner has sworn to make Pennsylvania a right to work state.

So have a cold union made beer while you ponder the real goal of the GOP....
 
2014-01-28 03:48:26 PM

Saiga410: That should be fun given the constitutionally mandated flat income tax.


Ooooh, this is a right wing talking point I haven't encountered yet.  Please elaborate.
 
2014-01-28 03:48:27 PM

Katolu: under a mountain: So I guess the Union just expects the State to create the money out of thin air?

Oh wait they'll just raise taxes.

Contracts, how do they work?

/ oh! Only if it benefits the "Job Creators"



And who wrote the contracts?

Politicians supported by union members and union dues.
Seems fair.

Good luck Illinois.
 
2014-01-28 03:48:47 PM

Xetal: "Work for us now and we'll pay part of what we owe you now, and we'll pay part when you're retired"

Years later:

"Turns out we can't afford what we promised.  Oops!"

Pensions are such a bad idea.


While that is certainly proving to be true, it's insane that the reaction to this is to be pissed off at the people trying not to get farked over instead of the people trying to fark them over.

/I know that's not what you're saying
//Looking at you, submidiot...
 
2014-01-28 03:53:32 PM

Flargan: HotWingConspiracy: Indeed, stuff costs money. It's crazy.

Also,

Liabilities are legal debts, parties renege on them sometimes. It is very strange.

:)


When the government reneges on a debt, it undermines the fundamentals of a fiat monetary system.  Or you're an indigenous ethnic minority.
 
2014-01-28 03:54:09 PM
i.huffpost.com
 
2014-01-28 03:54:21 PM
Isn't it a biatch when you run out of other peoples money.
 
2014-01-28 03:57:11 PM

palelizard: Flargan: HotWingConspiracy: Indeed, stuff costs money. It's crazy.

Also,

Liabilities are legal debts, parties renege on them sometimes. It is very strange.

:)

When the government reneges on a debt, it undermines the fundamentals of a fiat monetary system.  Or you're an indigenous ethnic minority.



Fed, yes.  State gov't.  Not so much.
 
2014-01-28 03:57:42 PM
This isn't hard to figure out.  The state needs to borrow until they go bankrupt, then the federal government will bail them out.  Repeat until financial meltdown.
 
2014-01-28 03:57:54 PM

Brick-House: Isn't it a biatch when you run out of other peoples money.


Probably about the same amount of a biatch as it is to agree to a contract without a plan to hold up your end of it.
 
2014-01-28 04:01:48 PM

cretinbob: [i.huffpost.com image 570x238]


Scooter Mcderpy should worry about his craptastic jobs numbers
 
2014-01-28 04:01:57 PM

Xetal: "Work for us now and we'll pay part of what we owe you now, and we'll pay part when you're retired"

Years later:

"Turns out we can't afford what we promised.  Oops!"

Pensions are such a bad idea.


When I become Emperor, deferred compensation is the second thing to go.

Right after daylight savings time.
 
2014-01-28 04:02:22 PM

paygun: This isn't hard to figure out.  The state needs to borrow until they go bankrupt, then the federal government will bail them out.  Repeat until financial meltdown.


Or they need to figure out a plan that's not, you know, in violation of the state Constitution.
 
2014-01-28 04:06:03 PM

under a mountain: palelizard: Flargan: HotWingConspiracy: Indeed, stuff costs money. It's crazy.

Also,

Liabilities are legal debts, parties renege on them sometimes. It is very strange.

:)

When the government reneges on a debt, it undermines the fundamentals of a fiat monetary system.  Or you're an indigenous ethnic minority.


Fed, yes.  State gov't.  Not so much.


To an extent.  Obviously the dollar isn't going to fail because of Illinois, but as far as local stuff goes, I would be very leery about taking any kind of IOU from the Illinois government.  Everything would need to be paid up front, before delivering any services.  It certainly doesn't lend itself to getting things done.
 
2014-01-28 04:09:12 PM

paygun: This isn't hard to figure out. The state needs to borrow until they go bankrupt, then the federal government will bail them out. Repeat until financial meltdown.


Might as well tap the same lender of last resort for damage caused by the same toxic assets.
 
2014-01-28 04:09:33 PM

Mercutio74: Brick-House: Isn't it a biatch when you run out of other peoples money.

Probably about the same amount of a biatch as it is to agree to a contract without a plan to hold up your end of it.


This is how these contract negotiations  work.

Politician: The state can't afford to give raises and pension increases.

Union:  Well if you don't we will withdraw our $upport for you, tell our members not to vote for you, and not give your idiot brother in law a no show job.  Oh and leak to our members in the press what you do with your free time away from the wife.

Politician: Ok it seems your demands are reasonable after all.
 
2014-01-28 04:12:46 PM

Mercutio74: Saiga410: That should be fun given the constitutionally mandated flat income tax.

Ooooh, this is a right wing talking point I haven't encountered yet.  Please elaborate.


SECTION 3. LIMITATIONS ON INCOME TAXATION
    (a)  A tax on or measured by income shall be at a
non-graduated rate. At any one time there may be no more than
one such tax imposed by the State for State purposes on
individuals and one such tax so imposed on corporations. In
any such tax imposed upon corporations the rate shall not
exceed the rate imposed on individuals by more than a ratio
of 8 to 5.


http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con9.htm">http://www.ilga.gov/com mission/lrb/con9.htm
 
2014-01-28 04:13:53 PM

Saiga410: Mercutio74: Saiga410: That should be fun given the constitutionally mandated flat income tax.

Ooooh, this is a right wing talking point I haven't encountered yet.  Please elaborate.

SECTION 3. LIMITATIONS ON INCOME TAXATION
    (a)  A tax on or measured by income shall be at a
non-graduated rate. At any one time there may be no more than
one such tax imposed by the State for State purposes on
individuals and one such tax so imposed on corporations. In
any such tax imposed upon corporations the rate shall not
exceed the rate imposed on individuals by more than a ratio
of 8 to 5.


http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con9.htm">http://www.ilga.gov/com mission/lrb/con9.htm


Oh, I thought you meant the federal one.  Nevermind.
 
2014-01-28 04:14:55 PM

under a mountain: So I guess the Union just expects the State to create the money out of thin air?

Oh wait they'll just raise taxes.


Honest question: shouldn't the state have been putting money aside for these pensions? It's not like the capitol building burned down. This is an obligation that they've had literally decades to prepare for.
 
2014-01-28 04:15:09 PM

under a mountain: This is how these contract negotiations work.

Politician: The state can't afford to give raises and pension increases.

Union: Well if you don't we will withdraw our $upport for you, tell our members not to vote for you, and not give your idiot brother in law a no show job. Oh and leak to our members in the press what you do with your free time away from the wife.

Politician: Ok it seems your demands are reasonable after all.


I've never given people a pass for being spineless and I'm not really encouraged to start now.  Besides, what are the unions going to do?  Vote Republican?  Yeah... that'll show... umm... those unions.
 
2014-01-28 04:18:05 PM
Just neoliberal democrats at work.  Management has more money for campaign contributions that Unions do.
 
2014-01-28 04:18:22 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: Here's a list of union made beers.

Alexander Keith's IAMAW
Anheuser-Busch IAMAW, IBT
Bass IAMAW
Beck's IAMAW
Bud Light IAMAW, UFCW, IBT
Budweiser IAMAW, IBT
Budweiser American Ale IAMAW
Busch IAMAW
Czechvar IAMAW
Dundee Craft Beer IBT
Genesee Brewery IBT
Goose Island IAMAW
Hamm's IAMAW, UAW
Henry Weinhard's Blue Boar Pale Ale IAMAW, UAW
Henry Weinhard's Private Reserve IAMAW, UAW
Hoegaarden IAMAW
Icehouse IAMAW, UAW
Kirin IAMAW
Labatt's Blue UFCW, IBT
LaBatt's Blue Light UFCW
Landshark Lager IAMAW
Leffe Blonde IAMAW
Lionshead IUOE
Mad River Brewing Co. IAMAW
Michelob IAMAW
Miller Beer IAMAW, UAW
Miller Genuine Draft IAMAW, UAW
Miller High Life IAMAW, UAW
Miller High Life Lite IAMAW, UAW
Miller Lite IAMAW, UAW
Miller Lite Ice IAMAW, UAW
Milwaukee's Best IAMAW, UAW
Milwaukee's Best Ice IAMAW, UAW
Milwaukee's Best Light IAMAW, UAW
Natural Ice IAMAW
Natural Light IAMAW
O'Doul's IAMAW
Olde English 800 IAMAW, UAW
Pabst UAW
Red Dog UAW
Rolling Rock IAMAW
Sharp's IAMAW, UAW
Shock Top IAMAW
Sparks Malt IAMAW
Staropramen IAMAW
Stegmaier IUOE
Stella Artois IAMAW

Apparently, Yuengling is a right to work brewery and its owner has sworn to make Pennsylvania a right to work state.

So have a cold union made beer while you ponder the real goal of the GOP....


PA is already a right to work state.
 
2014-01-28 04:19:22 PM

palelizard: To an extent. Obviously the dollar isn't going to fail because of Illinois, but as far as local stuff goes, I would be very leery about taking any kind of IOU from the Illinois government. Everything would need to be paid up front, before delivering any services. It certainly doesn't lend itself to getting things done.


I didn't know for certain if we would all be here enjoy this but between the chronic underfunding, the promise of impossible return rates, the occasional raiding, and the frenzied purchase of garbage securities, the show started early.
 
2014-01-28 04:23:44 PM

Mercutio74: I've never given people a pass for being spineless and I'm not really encouraged to start now. Besides, what are the unions going to do? Vote Republican?


Back an actual leftist candidate.

MFAWG: Honest question: shouldn't the state have been putting money aside for these pensions? It's not like the capitol building burned down. This is an obligation that they've had literally decades to prepare for.


Yes, and for decades, IL has been ignoring it.

Because of decades of insufficient funding by the General Assembly, TRS, in effect, has less than 41 cents on hand for every $1 promised in retirement benefits to TRS members.

https://trs.illinois.gov/press/reform/sb1.htm

But don't worry, IL had plenty of money to give tax breaks to corporations to keep jobs here, even though they fired workers anyway.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/story/2012-02 -1 6/sears-layoffs-hq/53120300/1
 
2014-01-28 04:26:38 PM

MFAWG: under a mountain: So I guess the Union just expects the State to create the money out of thin air?

Oh wait they'll just raise taxes.

Honest question: shouldn't the state have been putting money aside for these pensions? It's not like the capitol building burned down. This is an obligation that they've had literally decades to prepare for.


Yabbut those unions FORCED governments to sign that paper that makes PAUPERS out of CITIZENS while FATCAT UNION LEADERS live the high life on yachts made out of children's tears.

Also, government workers shouldn't be allowed to unionize, because the right to petition a government for a redress of grievances was more of a suggestion really, and obviously doesn't apply when petitioners are only looking out for their own interests.
 
2014-01-28 04:27:11 PM

MFAWG: shouldn't the state have been putting money aside for these pensions?


Why fund them?
Everyone is going to make huge returns each year.
Our forecasts show 8%+ growth annually.
Letting that money just sit there is just wasteful.
Let's put it to good use by building stadiums and high end apartments.
We will just put a little bit less towards them each year.

//Yeah that is pretty much how it went
 
2014-01-28 04:28:14 PM

rcantley: Ohs noes, employees wanting to get what they're contractually guaranteed!


Contracts that make guarantees based on assumptions about future economic conditions should be considered legally unenforceable.
 
2014-01-28 04:28:16 PM

MFAWG: under a mountain: So I guess the Union just expects the State to create the money out of thin air?

Oh wait they'll just raise taxes.

Honest question: shouldn't the state have been putting money aside for these pensions? It's not like the capitol building burned down. This is an obligation that they've had literally decades to prepare for.


The state did put money aside but they used a payment structure that chronically underfunded pensions. This has been going on for decades through governors and legislatures from both parties. They all knew it but also knew it was politically unviable to cut programs to pay for the pension shortfall. We're also hamstrung by a constitutional flat tax policy so our tax policy isn't as useful as it could be.
 
2014-01-28 04:30:25 PM

Spandau: PA is already a right to work state.


Which one is a right to rape state?
 
2014-01-28 04:30:53 PM

neversubmit: Spandau: PA is already a right to work state.

Which one is a right to rape state?


Penn State.

*ducks*
 
2014-01-28 04:36:37 PM
woo hoo!
bankrupt those suckers.

hello detroit.
 
2014-01-28 04:37:35 PM

GoldSpider: neversubmit: Spandau: PA is already a right to work state.

Which one is a right to rape state?

Penn State.

*ducks*


Not to be confused with Virginia, which is a rape to rape state.
 
2014-01-28 04:39:05 PM

GoldSpider: rcantley: Ohs noes, employees wanting to get what they're contractually guaranteed!

Contracts that make guarantees based on assumptions about future economic conditions should be considered legally unenforceable.


You'd probably have to specify that a bit.

A contract that says "I'll pay you $100 now and $200 when the work is done" assumes the "future economic condition" that I'll have $200 when the work is complete, and would therefore be unenforceable.
 
2014-01-28 04:41:28 PM

Dr Dreidel: GoldSpider: rcantley: Ohs noes, employees wanting to get what they're contractually guaranteed!

Contracts that make guarantees based on assumptions about future economic conditions should be considered legally unenforceable.

You'd probably have to specify that a bit.

A contract that says "I'll pay you $100 now and $200 when the work is done" assumes the "future economic condition" that I'll have $200 when the work is complete, and would therefore be unenforceable.


So we don't have to pay our credit card bills?
 
2014-01-28 04:43:47 PM

R.A.Danny: Dr Dreidel: GoldSpider: rcantley: Ohs noes, employees wanting to get what they're contractually guaranteed!

Contracts that make guarantees based on assumptions about future economic conditions should be considered legally unenforceable.

You'd probably have to specify that a bit.

A contract that says "I'll pay you $100 now and $200 when the work is done" assumes the "future economic condition" that I'll have $200 when the work is complete, and would therefore be unenforceable.

So we don't have to pay our credit card bills?


This "all debt is illegal and unenforceable" scenario is a good one. I like it.
 
2014-01-28 04:45:34 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: R.A.Danny: Dr Dreidel: GoldSpider: rcantley: Ohs noes, employees wanting to get what they're contractually guaranteed!

Contracts that make guarantees based on assumptions about future economic conditions should be considered legally unenforceable.

You'd probably have to specify that a bit.

A contract that says "I'll pay you $100 now and $200 when the work is done" assumes the "future economic condition" that I'll have $200 when the work is complete, and would therefore be unenforceable.

So we don't have to pay our credit card bills?

This "all debt is illegal and unenforceable" scenario is a good one. I like it.


A Farking Men, brother.
 
2014-01-28 04:47:16 PM

Dr Dreidel: A contract that says "I'll pay you $100 now and $200 when the work is done" assumes the "future economic condition" that I'll have $200 when the work is complete, and would therefore be unenforceable.


Because there are no other methods of relief, like lawsuits, liens or seizures?

/or even criminal fraud prosecutions if the "I'll have $200 then" statement was based on fraud.
 
2014-01-28 04:49:20 PM

R.A.Danny: So we don't have to pay our credit card bills?


Just pay it with another credit card.

Who cares about the future version of R.A. Danny anyway?
 
2014-01-28 04:50:21 PM

Dalrint: Hmm. So if they can set the precedent that pensions are, in fact, a form of property that a person has 'bought' by paying a portion of their paycheck into it...what does that do to all the companies that threw out their pensions and left their retirees with nothing?


Typically those companies are already bankrupt.
 
2014-01-28 04:53:06 PM

Flargan: R.A.Danny: So we don't have to pay our credit card bills?

Just pay it with another credit card.

Who cares about the future version of R.A. Danny anyway?


The old version certainly didn't.
 
2014-01-28 04:53:34 PM

MFAWG: under a mountain: So I guess the Union just expects the State to create the money out of thin air?

Oh wait they'll just raise taxes.

Honest question: shouldn't the state have been putting money aside for these pensions? It's not like the capitol building burned down. This is an obligation that they've had literally decades to prepare for.


They assumed that the house of cards wouldn't fall until they were retired or dead. This assumption was generally correct.
 
2014-01-28 04:53:46 PM

under a mountain: So I guess the Union just expects the State to create the money out of thin air?

Oh wait they'll just raise taxes.


yrs as a resident of IL and I've never seen my state taxes raised. Maybe it is time.

Property taxes is another matter. The school district funds the services for my handicapped child that the state doesn't.

/schools, our children's social safety net
 
2014-01-28 04:53:59 PM

GoldSpider: Contracts that make guarantees based on assumptions about future economic conditions should be considered legally unenforceable.



Oh my god AWESOME.  I COMPLETELY AGREE.

Someone get me the phone number of the nearest Lamborghini dealer.  I'm totally assuming I'm gonna get a huge raise soon.  Then I'm gonna need a real estate agent for vacation homes in Paris, France.
 
2014-01-28 04:56:46 PM

Saiga410: Mercutio74: Saiga410: That should be fun given the constitutionally mandated flat income tax.

Ooooh, this is a right wing talking point I haven't encountered yet.  Please elaborate.

SECTION 3. LIMITATIONS ON INCOME TAXATION
    (a)  A tax on or measured by income shall be at a
non-graduated rate. At any one time there may be no more than
one such tax imposed by the State for State purposes on
individuals and one such tax so imposed on corporations. In
any such tax imposed upon corporations the rate shall not
exceed the rate imposed on individuals by more than a ratio
of 8 to 5.


http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con9.htm">http://www.ilga.gov/com mission/lrb/con9.htm


Fine, uncrease the tax rate.

Add credits for income below X, Y, and Z, thresholds (ie 10% tax rate, 3% credit for every dollar below $80,000, and an additional 3% for every dollar below $40,000).

Done.

And hope the courts decide to be generous about you obviously subverting (but not technically violating) the state constitution.
 
2014-01-28 04:59:03 PM

Brick-House: Isn't it a biatch when you run out of other peoples money.


If you're running out of other people's money, you should have thought before selling the toll roads and paid parking to some foreign fatcat.

Where do you wingnuts get the idea that a pension is a social welfare program?
 
2014-01-28 05:00:13 PM

lennavan: GoldSpider: Contracts that make guarantees based on assumptions about future economic conditions should be considered legally unenforceable.

Oh my god AWESOME.  I COMPLETELY AGREE.

Someone get me the phone number of the nearest Lamborghini dealer.  I'm totally assuming I'm gonna get a huge raise soon.  Then I'm gonna need a real estate agent for vacation homes in Paris, France.


Yea, he outdid himself on the stupid here.
 
2014-01-28 05:02:41 PM

rcantley: Xetal: "Work for us now and we'll pay part of what we owe you now, and we'll pay part when you're retired"

Years later:

"Turns out we can't afford what we promised.  Oops!"

Pensions are such a bad idea.

While that is certainly proving to be true, it's insane that the reaction to this is to be pissed off at the people trying not to get farked over instead of the people trying to fark them over.

/I know that's not what you're saying
//Looking at you, submidiot...


The reaction is silly, but the bottom line is someone is getting screwed in every single case where deferred compensation has promised more than it can deliver.

Either the people who have worked their whole lives for the pension will get screwed, or the people that will end up supporting those pensions.

Either way, someone is getting screwed.

It is why it is a bad idea to have a system like this.  While the 401k system isn't perfect, it at least is a system where we won't have that problem 25 or 40 years from now.
 
2014-01-28 05:05:29 PM

Madame Ovary: under a mountain: So I guess the Union just expects the State to create the money out of thin air?

Oh wait they'll just raise taxes.

yrs as a resident of IL and I've never seen my state taxes raised. Maybe it is time.

Property taxes is another matter. The school district funds the services for my handicapped child that the state doesn't.

/schools, our children's social safety net


You missed the tax increase to 5% a few years back? I sure noticed it.
 
2014-01-28 05:05:37 PM

Brick-House: Isn't it a biatch when you run out of other peoples money.


Taxes are theft!!!
 
2014-01-28 05:06:20 PM

Xetal: Either the people who have worked their whole lives for the pension will get screwed, or the people that will end up supporting those pensions.

Either way, someone is getting screwed.

It is why it is a bad idea to have a system like this. While the 401k system isn't perfect, it at least is a system where we won't have that problem 25 or 40 years from now.


And that 401k may not be worth anything 25 to 40 years from now, but tough titties for the retiree, amiright?
 
2014-01-28 05:06:41 PM

Xetal: It is why it is a bad idea to have a system like this. While the 401k system isn't perfect, it at least is a system where we won't have that problem 25 or 40 years from now.


You just have a problem where people have no idea what they'll have in 10 years and it can be wiped out over night. The thing with pensions is allowing deferred contributions and not mandating they be contributed to right now. Mandate all contributions are made right now, and funding is quite easy. Also in the case of pensions offered by employers make it so once the money goes in the employer can never touch it and nothing happens in case of the employer going bankrupt.
 
2014-01-28 05:09:10 PM

shroom: And that 401k may not be worth anything 25 to 40 years from now, but tough titties for the retiree, amiright?


And that is why you must rely on selling your house for a huge profit.
Homes never fall in value.
 
2014-01-28 05:10:20 PM

Xetal: The reaction is silly, but the bottom line is someone is getting screwed in every single case where deferred compensation has promised more than it can deliver.


If I promise you something that was more than I can deliver, then you making me fulfill that promise is screwing me?  That seems closer to "fair" than "screwed" to me.
 
2014-01-28 05:10:26 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Dr Dreidel: A contract that says "I'll pay you $100 now and $200 when the work is done" assumes the "future economic condition" that I'll have $200 when the work is complete, and would therefore be unenforceable.

Because there are no other methods of relief, like lawsuits, liens or seizures?

/or even criminal fraud prosecutions if the "I'll have $200 then" statement was based on fraud.


By definition, "legally unenforceable" means that those things are not possible.

If I sign a contract to pay you $200 and it is legally unenforceable (say, it is to by some crack, as that is illegal the contract is unenforceable). You have zero legal recourse to get the money from me.
 
2014-01-28 05:11:04 PM

WhyteRaven74: Xetal: It is why it is a bad idea to have a system like this. While the 401k system isn't perfect, it at least is a system where we won't have that problem 25 or 40 years from now.

You just have a problem where people have no idea what they'll have in 10 years and it can be wiped out over night. The thing with pensions is allowing deferred contributions and not mandating they be contributed to right now. Mandate all contributions are made right now, and funding is quite easy. Also in the case of pensions offered by employers make it so once the money goes in the employer can never touch it and nothing happens in case of the employer going bankrupt.


FYI, the IMRF system (IL Municipal Retirement Fund) is run pretty much like this, and was 100% funded before the recession, and is sitting at around 85%-90% today.  The General Assembly seemed to have no problem writing rules that local units of government fund their system properly.  Nor does the General Assembly have any problem threatening to gut IMRF even though that would result in zero savings to the state (since the state doesn't fund one iota of it), but the voters to too stupid to realize this.
 
2014-01-28 05:11:57 PM

shroom: Xetal: Either the people who have worked their whole lives for the pension will get screwed, or the people that will end up supporting those pensions.

Either way, someone is getting screwed.

It is why it is a bad idea to have a system like this. While the 401k system isn't perfect, it at least is a system where we won't have that problem 25 or 40 years from now.

And that 401k may not be worth anything 25 to 40 years from now, but tough titties for the retiree, amiright?


The odds that any given pension will be worth zero in 40 years is way, way higher than a 401k that you didn't raid on your own in the meantime.
 
2014-01-28 05:12:32 PM

Katolu: Contracts, how do they work?


Poorly, when it's with the body that sets the laws.
 
2014-01-28 05:13:02 PM

lennavan: Xetal: The reaction is silly, but the bottom line is someone is getting screwed in every single case where deferred compensation has promised more than it can deliver.

If I promise you something that was more than I can deliver, then you making me fulfill that promise is screwing me?  That seems closer to "fair" than "screwed" to me.


The person who made the promise died of old age 10 years ago. His grandkids are paying the bill.
 
2014-01-28 05:13:08 PM

dywed88: By definition, "legally unenforceable" means that those things are not possible.

If I sign a contract to pay you $200 and it is legally unenforceable (say, it is to by some crack, as that is illegal the contract is unenforceable). You have zero legal recourse to get the money from me.


Something supported by a state amendment seems kinda enforceable.
 
2014-01-28 05:15:48 PM

R.A.Danny: dywed88: By definition, "legally unenforceable" means that those things are not possible.

If I sign a contract to pay you $200 and it is legally unenforceable (say, it is to by some crack, as that is illegal the contract is unenforceable). You have zero legal recourse to get the money from me.

Something supported by a state amendment seems kinda enforceable.


I suggest you read what posts are in response to before replying then.
 
2014-01-28 05:15:56 PM

BMFPitt: lennavan: Xetal: The reaction is silly, but the bottom line is someone is getting screwed in every single case where deferred compensation has promised more than it can deliver.

If I promise you something that was more than I can deliver, then you making me fulfill that promise is screwing me?  That seems closer to "fair" than "screwed" to me.

The person who made the promise died of old age 10 years ago. His grandkids are paying the bill.


Yes but in Illinois, that dead person still votes.
 
2014-01-28 05:16:41 PM

dywed88: R.A.Danny: dywed88: By definition, "legally unenforceable" means that those things are not possible.

If I sign a contract to pay you $200 and it is legally unenforceable (say, it is to by some crack, as that is illegal the contract is unenforceable). You have zero legal recourse to get the money from me.

Something supported by a state amendment seems kinda enforceable.

I suggest you read what posts are in response to before replying then.


Someone's gotta work around here.
 
2014-01-28 05:16:50 PM

Madame Ovary: under a mountain: So I guess the Union just expects the State to create the money out of thin air?

Oh wait they'll just raise taxes.

yrs as a resident of IL and I've never seen my state taxes raised. Maybe it is time.

Property taxes is another matter. The school district funds the services for my handicapped child that the state doesn't.

/schools, our children's social safety net


You have only been here 3 years?
 
2014-01-28 05:16:55 PM

R.A.Danny: dywed88: By definition, "legally unenforceable" means that those things are not possible.

If I sign a contract to pay you $200 and it is legally unenforceable (say, it is to by some crack, as that is illegal the contract is unenforceable). You have zero legal recourse to get the money from me.

Something supported by a state amendment seems kinda enforceable.


The conservatives love to worship at the altar of "States Rights", except when they don't.  State constitution includes language guaranteeing retirement plans or access to public education?  Socialist welfare programs to figure out a way out of paying for.
 
2014-01-28 05:19:22 PM

shroom: R.A.Danny: dywed88: By definition, "legally unenforceable" means that those things are not possible.

If I sign a contract to pay you $200 and it is legally unenforceable (say, it is to by some crack, as that is illegal the contract is unenforceable). You have zero legal recourse to get the money from me.

Something supported by a state amendment seems kinda enforceable.

The conservatives love to worship at the altar of "States Rights", except when they don't.  State constitution includes language guaranteeing retirement plans or access to public education?  Socialist welfare programs to figure out a way out of paying for.


Shroomie, we live in a state that is as Democrat as they come.
 
2014-01-28 05:22:24 PM

Xetal: or the people that will end up supporting those pensions.


The people being forced to pay the agreed upon salaries and benefits of the public sector employees who performed those services aren't getting screwed.  That is a silly way to look at it.

I get the sentiment, but no.

BMFPitt: The person who made the promise died of old age 10 years ago. His grandkids are paying the bill.


Not really.  The person making the promise (ie, the voters) can certainly still be alive. But it really doesn't matter either way.  I mean I know you hate the government and its all socialisms or whatever, but kids today benefit from government spending decades ago.  Believe it or not, I enjoy living in a country with sewers and highways, having a father who used his public education to make enough money to give me a leg up, a father who in turn got a leg up from my grandfather who served in the military and got an education from there.

Should the U.S. default on its debts so my kid doesn't have to pay for things done by officials elected by my father? Because that is how stupid what you are saying is.

Obligations should be met, if at all possible.  Even if that means the state selling land, buildings, cars, and bonds in order to meet the obligations they set.
 
2014-01-28 05:24:45 PM

Smackledorfer: Obligations should be met, if at all possible.  Even if that means the state selling land, buildings, cars, and bonds in order to meet the obligations they set.


Yet you'd probably be the first person to advocate personal bankruptcy if an individual can't pay their credit card bills or mortgage, right?
 
2014-01-28 05:27:47 PM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Brick-House: Isn't it a biatch when you run out of other peoples money.

If you're running out of other people's money, you should have thought before selling the toll roads and paid parking to some foreign fatcat.

Where do you wingnuts get the idea that a pension is a social welfare program?


Because it's not not money you, yourself, invested in starting your own company and creating jerbs.  You stupidly let another jerb creator promise to hold it and keep it safe for you.  Gullibles and moneys are easily separated.
 
2014-01-28 05:27:54 PM

R.A.Danny: shroom: R.A.Danny: dywed88: By definition, "legally unenforceable" means that those things are not possible.

If I sign a contract to pay you $200 and it is legally unenforceable (say, it is to by some crack, as that is illegal the contract is unenforceable). You have zero legal recourse to get the money from me.

Something supported by a state amendment seems kinda enforceable.

The conservatives love to worship at the altar of "States Rights", except when they don't.  State constitution includes language guaranteeing retirement plans or access to public education?  Socialist welfare programs to figure out a way out of paying for.

Shroomie, we live in a state that is as Democrat as they come.


The voting on SB1 was complicated, and bipartisan, though in a somewhat illusionary way.  I'm not letting Democrats in the legislature off the hook here (and I am no big fan of Madigan).

- Most Republicans voted for the bill on the basis of cutting spending and screwing unions
- Some Republicans (tea party variety) voted against the bill on the grounds that it didn't screw the unions enough, knowing that the votes were there to pass it anyway
- Many Democrats voted against the bill on principle, or out of loyalty to unions (and their constituents)
- Some Democrats voted for the bill on the grounds that going after the unions/cutting spending would make them popular and/or (re)electable.

A lot of bullshiat coming from a lot of sides.  Of course, Madigan could have called a vote on the compromise bill SB2404, which was negotiated by all parties and constitutional.  But Madigan is a dick.
 
2014-01-28 05:29:51 PM

joness0154: Smackledorfer: Obligations should be met, if at all possible.  Even if that means the state selling land, buildings, cars, and bonds in order to meet the obligations they set.

Yet you'd probably be the first person to advocate personal bankruptcy if an individual can't pay their credit card bills or mortgage, right?


Words, how do they work?
 
2014-01-28 05:32:50 PM

shroom: But Madigan is a dick.


So is his kid.
 
2014-01-28 05:33:43 PM

Smackledorfer: joness0154: Smackledorfer: Obligations should be met, if at all possible.  Even if that means the state selling land, buildings, cars, and bonds in order to meet the obligations they set.

Yet you'd probably be the first person to advocate personal bankruptcy if an individual can't pay their credit card bills or mortgage, right?

Words, how do they work?


Also, one loses quite a bit in a bankruptcy, kind of the equivalent of "even if that means the state selling land, buildings, cars, and bonds in order to meet the obligations they set".
 
2014-01-28 05:34:36 PM
Smackledorfer:I mean I know you hate the government and its all socialisms or whatever

Well isn't that just precious.

but kids today benefit from government spending decades ago.

My kids may benefit in the future from me buying them something today, but that doesn't mean I should leave then the bill with decades of interest.

Should the U.S. default on its debts so my kid doesn't have to pay for things done by officials elected by my father? Because that is how stupid what you are saying is.

What is it that you believe I am saying?  It seems to have been diluted by your derp.

Obligations should be met, if at all possible.  Even if that means the state selling land, buildings, cars, and bonds in order to meet the obligations they set.

That will get them by for a year, maybe two.  In the end they are going to have to raise taxes, cut services, and feel the passion that they have brought upon themselves.  Hopefully they don't let it go full Detroit.
 
2014-01-28 05:38:46 PM

GoldSpider: rcantley: Ohs noes, employees wanting to get what they're contractually guaranteed!

Contracts that make guarantees based on assumptions about future economic conditions should be considered legally unenforceable.


Care to think that through genius? See if you can figure out, all on your own, mind, why your statement is nonsense.
 
2014-01-28 05:39:52 PM

BMFPitt: lennavan: Xetal: The reaction is silly, but the bottom line is someone is getting screwed in every single case where deferred compensation has promised more than it can deliver.

If I promise you something that was more than I can deliver, then you making me fulfill that promise is screwing me?  That seems closer to "fair" than "screwed" to me.

The person who made the promise died of old age 10 years ago. His grandkids are paying the bill.


So, if the guy at the bank who signed my mortgage died I can just quit paying with no consequences?
 
2014-01-28 05:40:34 PM

BMFPitt: That will get them by for a year, maybe two.  In the end they are going to have to raise taxes, cut services, and feel the passion that they have brought upon themselves.  Hopefully they don't let it go full Detroit.


Well that was one of the more strange autocorrects I've had.
 
2014-01-28 05:42:12 PM

R.A.Danny: shroom: But Madigan is a dick.

So is his kid.


What in particular bothers you about Lisa Madigan?  I think she's been doing a pretty good job as attorney general.  She's definitely put some distance between herself and her father since getting elected.
 
2014-01-28 05:45:19 PM

BMFPitt: Dalrint: Hmm. So if they can set the precedent that pensions are, in fact, a form of property that a person has 'bought' by paying a portion of their paycheck into it...what does that do to all the companies that threw out their pensions and left their retirees with nothing?

Typically those companies are already bankrupt.


Um, no. Do a little research, both on healthy companies that did this, and others that declared conditional bankruptcy (ie restructured) specifically to dump pension liability rather than adjust exec compensation, reduce dividends, etc. It has been one of the greatest corporate swindle schemes in history.
 
2014-01-28 05:46:23 PM

joness0154: Smackledorfer: Obligations should be met, if at all possible.  Even if that means the state selling land, buildings, cars, and bonds in order to meet the obligations they set.

Yet you'd probably be the first person to advocate personal bankruptcy if an individual can't pay their credit card bills or mortgage, right?


If the state can't pay its debts or negotiate them, then the State should file for bankruptcy. They shouldn't unilaterally tear up contracts.

If you can't pay your credit card debt, you can't just say you aren't going to pay it. You have to go through a drawn out legal process that divides up available assets among creditors then will discharge most debts.
 
2014-01-28 05:51:13 PM

dionysusaur: Dalrint: Hmm. So if they can set the precedent that pensions are, in fact, a form of property that a person has 'bought' by paying a portion of their paycheck into it...what does that do to all the companies that threw out their pensions and left their retirees with nothing?

Chapters 11 and/or 13.  The Shareholders' right to maximized profit is not to be suborned to mere contract law or morality.


You do know that shareholders are the absolute last people to get any money when a company goes through bankruptcy?
 
2014-01-28 05:52:02 PM

shroom: R.A.Danny: shroom: But Madigan is a dick.

So is his kid.

What in particular bothers you about Lisa Madigan?  I think she's been doing a pretty good job as attorney general.  She's definitely put some distance between herself and her father since getting elected.


Cannot. Stand. Her.
 
2014-01-28 05:58:43 PM

shroom: R.A.Danny: shroom: But Madigan is a dick.

So is his kid.

What in particular bothers you about Lisa Madigan?  I think she's been doing a pretty good job as attorney general.  She's definitely put some distance between herself and her father since getting elected.


Wanting to release the names of individuals with FOID cards, for one.  She's a coont.
 
2014-01-28 06:00:12 PM

dywed88: So, if the guy at the bank who signed my mortgage died I can just quit paying with no consequences?


You really fail at analogies.

Mike_1962: Um, no. Do a little research, both on healthy companies that did this, and others that declared conditional bankruptcy (ie restructured) specifically to dump pension liability rather than adjust exec compensation, reduce dividends, etc. It has been one of the greatest corporate swindle schemes in history.


/facepalm
 
2014-01-28 06:00:24 PM

Dalrint: Hmm. So if they can set the precedent that pensions are, in fact, a form of property that a person has 'bought' by paying a portion of their paycheck into it...what does that do to all the companies that threw out their pensions and left their retirees with nothing?


Gives their CEOs something else to laugh at.
 
2014-01-28 06:12:35 PM

Saiga410: Just wait until the unions rebel and start to vote R.


They're more likely to ditch the Democratic party and start their own than they are to join forces with the Republicans.
 
2014-01-28 06:17:57 PM

LectertheChef: Saiga410: Just wait until the unions rebel and start to vote R.

They're more likely to ditch the Democratic party and start their own than they are to join forces with the Republicans.


Or system is set up such that it would be way easier to just take over the state Republican party.  That way they wouldn't have to fight for ballot access.

Something like that is going to happen nationally in the next 6-10 years.
 
2014-01-28 06:31:02 PM
Wait, does the submitter think that the legislators will somehow pay out of their own pockets?
 
2014-01-28 06:33:30 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: Here's a list of union made beers.

Alexander Keith's IAMAW
Anheuser-Busch IAMAW, IBT
Bass IAMAW
Beck's IAMAW
Bud Light IAMAW, UFCW, IBT
Budweiser IAMAW, IBT
Budweiser American Ale IAMAW
Busch IAMAW
Czechvar IAMAW
Dundee Craft Beer IBT
Genesee Brewery IBT
Goose Island IAMAW
Hamm's IAMAW, UAW
Henry Weinhard's Blue Boar Pale Ale IAMAW, UAW
Henry Weinhard's Private Reserve IAMAW, UAW
Hoegaarden IAMAW
Icehouse IAMAW, UAW
Kirin IAMAW
Labatt's Blue UFCW, IBT
LaBatt's Blue Light UFCW
Landshark Lager IAMAW
Leffe Blonde IAMAW
Lionshead IUOE
Mad River Brewing Co. IAMAW
Michelob IAMAW
Miller Beer IAMAW, UAW
Miller Genuine Draft IAMAW, UAW
Miller High Life IAMAW, UAW
Miller High Life Lite IAMAW, UAW
Miller Lite IAMAW, UAW
Miller Lite Ice IAMAW, UAW
Milwaukee's Best IAMAW, UAW
Milwaukee's Best Ice IAMAW, UAW
Milwaukee's Best Light IAMAW, UAW
Natural Ice IAMAW
Natural Light IAMAW
O'Doul's IAMAW
Olde English 800 IAMAW, UAW
Pabst UAW
Red Dog UAW
Rolling Rock IAMAW
Sharp's IAMAW, UAW
Shock Top IAMAW
Sparks Malt IAMAW
Staropramen IAMAW
Stegmaier IUOE
Stella Artois IAMAW

Apparently, Yuengling is a right to work brewery and its owner has sworn to make Pennsylvania a right to work state.

So have a cold union made beer while you ponder the real goal of the GOP....


Well all of those are pretty much shiat, except maybe Goose Island and Leffe.
 
2014-01-28 06:35:27 PM

BMFPitt: Smackledorfer:I mean I know you hate the government and its all socialisms or whatever

Well isn't that just precious.

but kids today benefit from government spending decades ago.

My kids may benefit in the future from me buying them something today, but that doesn't mean I should leave then the bill with decades of interest.

Should the U.S. default on its debts so my kid doesn't have to pay for things done by officials elected by my father? Because that is how stupid what you are saying is.

What is it that you believe I am saying?  It seems to have been diluted by your derp.

Obligations should be met, if at all possible.  Even if that means the state selling land, buildings, cars, and bonds in order to meet the obligations they set.

That will get them by for a year, maybe two.  In the end they are going to have to raise taxes, cut services, and feel the passion that they have brought upon themselves.  Hopefully they don't let it go full Detroit.


The entire concept of government eludes you, doesn't?

Is it the scale you don't understand? The sheer numbers in a society?

You realize people are born and die every minute right?

A government could not, nor should it attempt to, make decisions that solely affect a single age group. That would be retarded, and yet that is your stance on this thread apparently.
 
2014-01-28 06:39:07 PM

joness0154: Illinois democrats have been farking over the state for years.  Their lack of effort to fix this pension mess has been farking with the average citizens here for a long time


The Republicans are every bit as at fault, considering they ran the show for a considerable about of time in this state from the late 70s to early 2000s (they had the governor's chair from 1977 to 2003 and had the Senate for at least 10 years of that span where they also had the governorship).  The thing is that this state has been machine-controlled for so long, and the "Combine" crosses parties here, it isn't just one or the other.

That, and sometime around 2000 or so the Illinois Republican Party became completely incompetent as an organization.  Republicans who are mad at Obama should also direct their ire at Illinois Republicans for driving Peter Fitzgerald out of running for re-election for the Senate over the Lincoln Library.
 
2014-01-28 06:40:38 PM

Brick-House: Isn't it a biatch when you run out of other peoples money.


Isn't it a biatch when you are a self loathing poor who thinks he is a "conservative'?
 
2014-01-28 06:46:47 PM

colon_pow: woo hoo!
bankrupt those suckers.

hello detroit.


Honestly, Detroit could be a valid lesson here.

1) Have something happen that either drives the tax base away (1967 riots), or reduces the value of services received for each tax dollar (actually paying the damn pensions).  It helps if you're insanely corrupt.
2) Raise tax rates.  Some more people leave to go to lower-tax, same service or same-tax, higher-service regions.  Tax income falls.
3) Repeat Step 2
4) Repeat Step 3
...
118) Run out of taxes to raise, and go bankrupt.

You just have to hit a point where cutting taxes kills you short-term, and raising taxes and/or cutting services means that your city/state is no longer the value it was and enough people leave to lower total incomes over the long term.

Mind you, Detroit had the Lodge, so it was really easy to leave and cut your property tax rate in half (and lose the income tax) while actually getting cops and firemen.  YMMV on how well it applies to a whole state.
 
2014-01-28 06:58:44 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: Apparently, Yuengling is a right to work brewery and its owner has sworn to make Pennsylvania a right to work state.


really? Well that's terribly disappointing... I'm going to have to change my drinking habits.
 
2014-01-28 07:20:44 PM

Smackledorfer: The entire concept of government eludes you, doesn't?

Is it the scale you don't understand? The sheer numbers in a society?

You realize people are born and die every minute right?

A government could not, nor should it attempt to, make decisions that solely affect a single age group. That would be retarded, and yet that is your stance on this thread apparently.


It's really hard to tell if you're really as dumb/crazy as you're claiming to be.  If this is trolling, then bravo, sir.
 
2014-01-28 08:30:03 PM

BMFPitt: Smackledorfer: The entire concept of government eludes you, doesn't?

Is it the scale you don't understand? The sheer numbers in a society?

You realize people are born and die every minute right?

A government could not, nor should it attempt to, make decisions that solely affect a single age group. That would be retarded, and yet that is your stance on this thread apparently.

It's really hard to tell if you're really as dumb/crazy as you're claiming to be.  If this is trolling, then bravo, sir.


You were the one making the ignorant claim that anyone who chooses to pay a government employee pension is dead when it comes time to pay, not me. If you intended it as a non-factual statement, I will take my leave.
 
2014-01-28 08:43:43 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: Here's a list of union made beers.

Alexander Keith's IAMAW
Anheuser-Busch IAMAW, IBT
Bass IAMAW
Beck's IAMAW
Bud Light IAMAW, UFCW, IBT
Budweiser IAMAW, IBT
Budweiser American Ale IAMAW
Busch IAMAW
Czechvar IAMAW
Dundee Craft Beer IBT
Genesee Brewery IBT
Goose Island IAMAW
Hamm's IAMAW, UAW
Henry Weinhard's Blue Boar Pale Ale IAMAW, UAW
Henry Weinhard's Private Reserve IAMAW, UAW
Hoegaarden IAMAW
Icehouse IAMAW, UAW
Kirin IAMAW
Labatt's Blue UFCW, IBT
LaBatt's Blue Light UFCW
Landshark Lager IAMAW
Leffe Blonde IAMAW
Lionshead IUOE
Mad River Brewing Co. IAMAW
Michelob IAMAW
Miller Beer IAMAW, UAW
Miller Genuine Draft IAMAW, UAW
Miller High Life IAMAW, UAW
Miller High Life Lite IAMAW, UAW
Miller Lite IAMAW, UAW
Miller Lite Ice IAMAW, UAW
Milwaukee's Best IAMAW, UAW
Milwaukee's Best Ice IAMAW, UAW
Milwaukee's Best Light IAMAW, UAW
Natural Ice IAMAW
Natural Light IAMAW
O'Doul's IAMAW
Olde English 800 IAMAW, UAW
Pabst UAW
Red Dog UAW
Rolling Rock IAMAW
Sharp's IAMAW, UAW
Shock Top IAMAW
Sparks Malt IAMAW
Staropramen IAMAW
Stegmaier IUOE
Stella Artois IAMAW

Apparently, Yuengling is a right to work brewery and its owner has sworn to make Pennsylvania a right to work state.

So have a cold union made beer while you ponder the real goal of the GOP....


Your list of beers lacks beer.
 
2014-01-28 08:46:30 PM

MFAWG: under a mountain: So I guess the Union just expects the State to create the money out of thin air?

Oh wait they'll just raise taxes.

Honest question: shouldn't the state have been putting money aside for these pensions? It's not like the capitol building burned down. This is an obligation that they've had literally decades to prepare for.


They spent the money on useless (aka pork) public works projects to guarantee union jobs.
 
2014-01-28 08:53:34 PM
2014: Illinois back in massive massive debt.
 
2014-01-28 08:56:48 PM

OgreMagi: TheShavingofOccam123: Here's a list of union made beers.
...
Goose Island IAMAW
...

Your list of beers lacks beer.


HOW DARE YOU, SIR.  MADE IN ILLINOIS NO LESS.

www.beer-universe.com

HOW DARE YOU.
 
2014-01-28 08:58:32 PM

OgreMagi: MFAWG: under a mountain: So I guess the Union just expects the State to create the money out of thin air?

Oh wait they'll just raise taxes.

Honest question: shouldn't the state have been putting money aside for these pensions? It's not like the capitol building burned down. This is an obligation that they've had literally decades to prepare for.

They spent the money on useless (aka pork) public works projects to guarantee union jobs.


Derp.

Or citation showing your claim.
 
2014-01-29 03:34:51 AM

Smackledorfer: You realize people are born and die every minute right?

A government could not, nor should it attempt to, make decisions that solely affect a single age group. That would be retarded, and yet that is your stance on this thread apparently.



Bingo.  In many areas government employee unions set up landmines, trading present benefits for larger long term ones, and many congresscritters followed right along.  It's harder for a government to go bankrupt, and the results are extremely bad if they do.

As such, targeting the people who essentially made a bad deal ~40 years ago before I was even born as opposed to putting the burden on *my* back makes some sense.  I'd rather go after the legislaters in that case, but they're a bit like Madoff in that respect- the money is gone.
 
2014-01-29 09:40:23 AM

Firethorn: Smackledorfer: You realize people are born and die every minute right?

A government could not, nor should it attempt to, make decisions that solely affect a single age group. That would be retarded, and yet that is your stance on this thread apparently.


Bingo.  In many areas government employee unions set up landmines, trading present benefits for larger long term ones, and many congresscritters followed right along.  It's harder for a government to go bankrupt, and the results are extremely bad if they do.

As such, targeting the people who essentially made a bad deal ~40 years ago before I was even born as opposed to putting the burden on *my* back makes some sense.  I'd rather go after the legislaters in that case, but they're a bit like Madoff in that respect- the money is gone.


Contracts are renegotiated on a regular basis by unions representing everything from 20 to 60 year olds. They are bargaining in the public eye where voters span 18 to 90.

There is no clean cut gap in generations here. If there was I could see where you are coming from (though even then there are times when borrowing is ok, so we would still occaisionally saddle the next group with a bill). The repetition of this 'before I was born' crap is silly. It is true for a few, but not for most people and situations. Even if you weren't born when some now-retired teacher first started his career (or perhaps we should look at when he/she started thinking about choosing his career based on benefits) you were likely alive and voting with the ability to influence government decisions in an overlapping manner with quite a few of the pension-expecting state employees. It doesn't matter if the original bargaining legislator at start of that one teacher's career is gone. You would have had your input into the system.


I should not feel entitled to have my government skip out on pensions to save money. If I was, why stop there?

If I was 17 when a war started, could I similarly demand a dismissal of war bonds later on?

Hell, maybe a democrat can have his guy choose not to pay debts incurred while the reublicans were elected?

Maybe we should just have one government per person? I mean, I didn't vote for the constitution or elect the official who nominated the justices who decided roe v wade. Why should I have to put up with my neighbor's free speech, baby killing, and gun ownership?

I put up with it because we, the people, make voting decisions in each of our generations to not change, or sometimes to change, those things. And unless you just turned 18 and all your state's teachers simultaneously were hired 40 years ago, you've had your say too.
 
2014-01-29 11:41:00 AM
<quote>Contracts are renegotiated on a regular basis by unions representing everything from 20 to 60 year olds. They are bargaining in the public eye where voters span 18 to 90. </quote>

With administrators that are looking maybe 5 years into the future if we're lucky, they're looking 20+.  The benefits promised to the previous generation got *crazy*.
 
2014-01-29 11:53:32 AM

WhyteRaven74: Xetal: It is why it is a bad idea to have a system like this. While the 401k system isn't perfect, it at least is a system where we won't have that problem 25 or 40 years from now.

You just have a problem where people have no idea what they'll have in 10 years and it can be wiped out over night. The thing with pensions is allowing deferred contributions and not mandating they be contributed to right now. Mandate all contributions are made right now, and funding is quite easy. Also in the case of pensions offered by employers make it so once the money goes in the employer can never touch it and nothing happens in case of the employer going bankrupt.


That is how our pension is set up. Even if our company goes under the fund is managed by a third party that doesn't allow the company access to the funds. So I don't have to worry about crooked execs robbing the thing blind.
 
2014-01-29 12:15:58 PM

Firethorn: With administrators that are looking maybe 5 years into the future if we're lucky, they're looking 20+.  The benefits promised to the previous generation got *crazy*.


I do concur that everyone, from the private sector to the government to our private lives, should be making better decisions and looking to the future.

However, my primary point is that I personally feel people should pay their debts and fulfill their obligations and that our government should as well.  I have no problem with admitting this is a gray area (as per bankruptcy mentioning early in the thread) and not a pure black and white issue, nor do I take issue with people disagreeing with me on where the line should be drawn, etc.

My secondary point is that the debts of citizens who happen to be older than us do not allow us to do a logical end-run on that concept.  Yes, there are some decisions that somebody's great grandfather made that will affect a youngun with no input into how/whether it affects him.  But for the most part, this is not the case with respect to state or federal pension obligations and other debt.  Every single election we have input into adjusting pension levels in a variety of manners - and in some cases we should.  We can draw up different contracts for new employees, we can grandfather in various levels of pension for those relying on them, we have all sorts of options at our disposal.

Workers earned and paid into their pension system.  Make all the adjustments you want on future pensions, but pay workers what you owe them for work performed.

Bonus: in the process if we find that the new adjusted numbers result in the same number and quality of applicant for the job, then we discover that they were overpaid the whole time.  If, otoh, we see poor results, then we know we got our money's worth in the past. Similarly, we may decide we do need good quality employees of a certain type, but less of them.  We lose that discussion when we offer people X and later just shrug and give them Y, and I think we lose faith in the government as a whole as a result.

There are just so many other ways to go about it than to stick it to people who worked their whole lives and are now retired. I know that is especially true here in Michigan.  We nailed retired folks hard both statewide and in detroit, and we likely won't even see any real savings from it: You take a guy with a 15k pension and cut it a few grand, and you wind up with a guy directly relying on more state and federal aid. I guess you give the bank a hook-up when they all jump on the reverse-mortgage ripoff bandwagon.
 
2014-01-29 02:08:57 PM

Smackledorfer: However, my primary point is that I personally feel people should pay their debts and fulfill their obligations and that our government should as well. I have no problem with admitting this is a gray area (as per bankruptcy mentioning early in the thread) and not a pure black and white issue, nor do I take issue with people disagreeing with me on where the line should be drawn, etc.


I'm not saying that we write off their pensions entirely, no way.  But like a bankruptcy hearing, they might have to do with a little less.  Half a percent under inflation rather than full inflation protection.  A bit of charge for medical.

Smackledorfer: Bonus: in the process if we find that the new adjusted numbers result in the same number and quality of applicant for the job, then we discover that they were overpaid the whole time. If, otoh, we see poor results, then we know we got our money's worth in the past. Similarly, we may decide we do need good quality employees of a certain type, but less of them. We lose that discussion when we offer people X and later just shrug and give them Y, and I think we lose faith in the government as a whole as a result.


Very good point.  They tried this with the military by introducing 'redux', the quality of troops dropped drastically, retention of the desired soldiers fell through the floor.  They ended up going back to the old system, or sweetining 'redux' by $30k.

Personally I might go after the double dipping and where they give a guy the highest paying job for like 3 weeks so he gets to retire at that pay grade.  The military instituted a 'average of the 3 highest years' for a reason.
 
2014-01-29 02:35:54 PM

Firethorn: Personally I might go after the double dipping and where they give a guy the highest paying job for like 3 weeks so he gets to retire at that pay grade.  The military instituted a 'average of the 3 highest years' for a reason.


The highest paid job bit is a total scam in a lot of cases.  100% agree with you on that. Even some of the high 3 cases result in a certain position being a position you don't take until you are ready to put in your high three and one you leave when you finish achieving that goal.  There isn't much you could do about that except make the position all the sweeter with something akin to its own mini-pension (if you reach this coveted GS-14 spot, then in addition to it counting towards your high-three you get an additional 1% per year on top of regular pension rules).

The double dipping, however, is fair game imo (except when the 2nd dip job is filled by a form of nepotism or connections).

Consider a skilled position, like an engineer.  He has his X years in for his full pension draw, is at his maximum or near-maximum grade level, and has very little to gain by keeping that job.  His smart move, at that point, is retiring from his job, and finding a new one. He can find another job in either the private or public sector (let us assume).

Now let us assume the government is looking for someone with his qualifications for another position, and so is company B.  What difference does it make if the engineer takes the government job instead of the private one? None whatsoever. The government was going to hire an engineer for the second position.  The engineer was going to retire from the first position as soon as he reached his pension max.  The government still needed to hire someone to replace him there.  And the government gets the skills it was looking for in the 2nd position.

The real breakdown in the process (if there must be one at all) here is the diminishing returns incentive that led the engineer to retire from the initial position in the first place.  The question here then becomes: is it going to save money, or cost money, to provide additional incentives for the employee to remain beyond where their pensions cap in the current system.  Would an additional 1 or half percent a year to his pension be enough to keep the engineer? If it did keep him, would that even save money, as the government still needs to hire/train someone for the second position anyways. And in theory, the double-dipper himself is bringing a very good value of experience and capability to the table when the government picks him up as a rehire.

If, otoh, we do something like a lockout of drawing a pension if still government employed (or employed anywhere would also have to be an option to prevent the early loss of those who can find similar work in the public sector), then are any gains realized, or do people simply retire and stay retired?  I am a pensioned employee*.  I don't expect to double-dip, but I do plan on leaving the minute I stop increasing my pension. If there is a good option for double-dipping on the table I may take it at that point, I honestly don't know.

Now, moves that are too lateral could be solved with blocking the re-hiring of people.  We don't want Bob in room 102 and Jim in 103 each reaching their pension max and job-swapping - that is a clear loss for the government.

Of course I think you may be speaking more on the military end, where iirc the real issue isn't the 60 year olds retiring and working a few years at a different position, but a military guy retiring in his 30s and moving to a civilian job, then getting full double pensions. The same individual logic still applies, but there may be an easier fix here: Don't hire civilians to do the same jobs as the military. I'm not military, so perhaps that is a gross oversimplification.

*this is where you jump on everything I've said as being personally biased :)

Good talk.
 
2014-01-29 05:13:47 PM
In case anyone's wondering, the bill in question doesn't destroy the pension liabilities, or remove the government's obligation to pay them. It raises the retirement age by up to 5 years, depending on the worker's current age, curbs cost-of-living adjustments for current retirees, and requires future retirees to forgo up to 5 cost-of-living adjustments when they retire. It's basically doing just what Smackledorfer  suggested- adjusting pension levels in a variety of manners, and is, in fact, pretty tame.
 
2014-01-29 06:17:03 PM
From what I can tell, the issue is that Illinois has been skimping on the employer contributions to the pension plan for a few decades now, using the money on other things. That means that, for the past few decades, people living in Illinois have been living the life of Riley, low taxes and high quality of life (at least compared to taxes and/or life quality if they had actually bothered to fund the pensions). And now, somebody's got to pay the debt they've accumulated. And really the only option is to fark over the workers, because if they tried to raise taxes enough and cut costs enough to fund the deficit that way, people would simply move, and stop paying taxes to Illinois all together. Certainly, it's not fair, but it's what's going to happen.
 
2014-01-29 06:42:00 PM

ignacio: In case anyone's wondering, the bill in question doesn't destroy the pension liabilities, or remove the government's obligation to pay them. It raises the retirement age by up to 5 years, depending on the worker's current age, curbs cost-of-living adjustments for current retirees, and requires future retirees to forgo up to 5 cost-of-living adjustments when they retire. It's basically doing just what Smackledorfer  suggested- adjusting pension levels in a variety of manners, and is, in fact, pretty tame.


Yea I am good with it outside of cost of living changes. And depending on how grandfathered in other bits are.
 
2014-01-29 10:20:59 PM

Xetal: While the 401k system isn't perfect, it at least is a system where we won't have that problem 25 or 40 years from now.


And all the stocks, bonds, mutual funds and other investment (legalized gambling) vehicles those 401(k)s are a part of will be worth JUST AS MUCH IF NOT MORE than their initial value... RIGHT???

There's a reason why the SEC made investment brokers who advertise put a disclaimer either onscreen or in the voiceover - "returns not guaranteed - investments may lose value".

And what about all those people who reached retirement age in 2006-2009 after busting their humps for 30 years while shoveling money into their 401(k) accounts since the 1980's, only to find that now they would have to fight their grandchildren for that Burger King job?
 
2014-01-30 01:31:02 AM

rewind2846: nd what about all those people who reached retirement age in 2006-2009 after busting their humps for 30 years while shoveling money into their 401(k) accounts since the 1980's, only to find that now they would have to fight their grandchildren for that Burger King job?


Then they stuck around until 2011, when they broke even again.

Oh, and if between 2006- September 2008, you retired and DIDN'T cash out (or at least have a "So there ARE recessions, this is a thing that happens, maybe being able to survive on half the normal during the 2-3 years of the crash is a good thing"), you're just a bit of an idiot.

/Or hell, SS and welfare.  You won't go on vacation, but at least in theory, the house is paid off and the kids are gone, so you just live super-cheap for the duration.
 
2014-01-30 03:36:53 AM

Smackledorfer: Even some of the high 3 cases result in a certain position being a position you don't take until you are ready to put in your high three and one you leave when you finish achieving that goal.


Consider that a 'career' in the military can be 20 to 30 years - due to physical requirements many are retiring medically at 20 years anyways.  You have to make E-6 to retire(used to be E-5).  There are 9 grades, though the last 2 are typically only achieved by those going over 20.  So you're looking at 2-3 years per grade anyways.  Having somebody stay in for 3 years to get 'full' E-7 to E-9 pay means that they've 'gotten their money's worth' anyways.

*this is where you jump on everything I've said as being personally biased :)

Not really, I'm working on the military pension myself.  The military solution is that you get another 2.5% pension per year after 20, up until they kick you out at 30.  Most who stay until 30 aren't doing it for the money anyways.
 
Displayed 140 of 140 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report