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.

(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
    More: Obvious, Illinois, pass laws, Illinois lawmakers, Municipal Employees, Sangamon County, pensions, unions, workers  
•       •       •

3710 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Jan 2014 at 3:12 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 140 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | 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





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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